GNU CLISP is an ANSI Common Lisp implementation.
Release 2.32 (2003-12-29) fixes many bugs
and adds some new features; NEWS appended.
More information on <http://clisp.cons.org>.
Download CLISP 2.32 from <http://sf.net/clisp>.
2.32 (2003-12-29)
=================
User visible changes
--------------------
* WRITE-BYTE-SEQUENCE now accepts :NO-HANG keyword argument.
Thanks to Don Cohen <···············@isis.cs3-inc.com>.
* Support files larger than 2 GB or 4 GB on platforms with LFS
(Large File Support).
* New module berkeley-db interfaces to
<http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/api_c/dbt_class.html>
and allows working the Berkeley DB databases.
See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#berkeley-db> for details.
* New module pcre interfaces to <http://www.pcre.org/> and
makes Perl Compatible Regular Expressions available in CLISP.
See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#pcre> for details.
* Module syscalls now exports function POSIX:STAT-VFS.
See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#syscalls> for details.
* When the system C library provides a wildcard (fnmatch) implementation,
it is used instead of the GNU wildcard distributed with CLISP
when the CLISP wildcard module is built.
* Prompt is now fully customizable by the user.
CUSTOM:*PROMPT* is replaced with 5 variables.
See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#prompt> for details.
* Readline is now used properly on Cygwin/X11.
* Command line interface: the initial verbosity level is controlled
by the pair of mutually canceling options -q/-v.
See <http://clisp.cons.org/clisp.html#opt-verbose> for details.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
"Sam Steingold" <···@gnu.org> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> GNU CLISP is an ANSI Common Lisp implementation.
> Release 2.32 (2003-12-29) fixes many bugs
> and adds some new features; NEWS appended.
> More information on <http://clisp.cons.org>.
> Download CLISP 2.32 from <http://sf.net/clisp>.
>
> 2.32 (2003-12-29)
> =================
>
> User visible changes
> --------------------
>
> * WRITE-BYTE-SEQUENCE now accepts :NO-HANG keyword argument.
> Thanks to Don Cohen <···············@isis.cs3-inc.com>.
>
> * Support files larger than 2 GB or 4 GB on platforms with LFS
> (Large File Support).
>
> * New module berkeley-db interfaces to
> <http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/api_c/dbt_class.html>
> and allows working the Berkeley DB databases.
> See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#berkeley-db> for details.
>
> * New module pcre interfaces to <http://www.pcre.org/> and
> makes Perl Compatible Regular Expressions available in CLISP.
> See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#pcre> for details.
>
> * Module syscalls now exports function POSIX:STAT-VFS.
> See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#syscalls> for details.
>
> * When the system C library provides a wildcard (fnmatch) implementation,
> it is used instead of the GNU wildcard distributed with CLISP
> when the CLISP wildcard module is built.
>
> * Prompt is now fully customizable by the user.
> CUSTOM:*PROMPT* is replaced with 5 variables.
> See <http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#prompt> for details.
>
> * Readline is now used properly on Cygwin/X11.
>
> * Command line interface: the initial verbosity level is controlled
> by the pair of mutually canceling options -q/-v.
> See <http://clisp.cons.org/clisp.html#opt-verbose> for details.
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
> <http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
> <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
Great!
Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
* "ace" <··@spam.aol>:
> Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
I'm assuming you know that you can easily choose not to have it
displayed. For example, start clisp with the -q-option, or save a new
image with ext:saveinitmem with a quiet-argument of not-NIL.
Or are you worried about The Great Jewish Conspiracy? The source is
there for your perusal, you know. Let us know if you find anything
conspiratorial, will you?
HTH. HAND.
--
Johannes Groedem <OpenPGP: 5055654C>
"Johannes Groedem" <······@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
···················@unity.copyleft.no...
> * "ace" <··@spam.aol>:
>
> > Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
>
> I'm assuming you know that you can easily choose not to have it
> displayed. For example, start clisp with the -q-option, or save a new
> image with ext:saveinitmem with a quiet-argument of not-NIL.
Do they have an option for a crecent, budda, or crucifix banner?
> Or are you worried about The Great Jewish Conspiracy? The source is
> there for your perusal, you know. Let us know if you find anything
> conspiratorial, will you?
Are you worried about "The Great 'Everybody Believes in the Great Jewish
Conspiracy' Conspiracy"? Your reactive-tone would seem to indicate it.
Let me know when you guys decide to ditch the religious overtones.
-- "enlightened" without a menorah
ace wrote:
> Let me know when you guys decide to ditch the religious overtones.
>
For chrissake, it's another minor human symbol. The way those work is
pretty simple, though apparently lots of people don't understand it. For
starters, the very fact you want it gone gives it a lot of its power.
Ironically, you're protecting the symbolism by granting the symbol
significance sufficient to merit its removal, like the way the
symbolism of the swaztika is preserved by people frothing at the
mouth in indignation when it appears instead of going "oh, I remember seeing
that in history classes, the nazis used it, right? What losers those nazis
were, eh?"
GODWINS LAW ERROR
RESTARTS:
[0] Move the fuck on!
* "ace" <··@spam.aol>:
> Do they have an option for a crecent, budda, or crucifix banner?
As I pointed out, you have access to the source, so there's nothing
stopping you. You could even fork a buddhist CLISP if you wanted.
(Good luck with that.)
> Let me know when you guys decide to ditch the religious overtones.
I'm an atheist myself, and I would rather not have religious symbols
in Lisps I use, but I'm not one of the authors, so it's really not up
to me.
--
Johannes Groedem <OpenPGP: 5055654C>
On 8610 day of my life Johannes Groedem wrote:
> You could even fork a buddhist CLISP if you wanted.
> (Good luck with that.)
(loop (princ "OM MANI PADME HUM "))
See headers also :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
| recursion, n:
| See recursion
Johannes Groedem <······@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> I'm an atheist myself, and I would rather not have religious symbols
> in Lisps I use, but I'm not one of the authors, so it's really not up
> to me.
I'm pretty sick of the cross used for addition and the crescents used
for grouping.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Johannes Groedem <······@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>
>>I'm an atheist myself, and I would rather not have religious symbols
>>in Lisps I use, but I'm not one of the authors, so it's really not up
>>to me.
>
>
> I'm pretty sick of the cross used for addition and the crescents used
> for grouping.
Do you object to the dollar sign used as variable indicator? :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>> Johannes Groedem <······@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>>
>>>I'm an atheist myself, and I would rather not have religious symbols
>>>in Lisps I use, but I'm not one of the authors, so it's really not up
>>>to me.
>> I'm pretty sick of the cross used for addition and the crescents used
>> for grouping.
>
> Do you object to the dollar sign used as variable indicator? :)
I'll render unto Ceasar, etc. etc.
Dare I point out the obvious feminine imagry in the empty list?
()
--
~jrm
Johannes Groedem <······@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> * "ace" <··@spam.aol>:
>
>> Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
>
> I'm assuming you know that you can easily choose not to have it
> displayed. For example, start clisp with the -q-option, or save a new
> image with ext:saveinitmem with a quiet-argument of not-NIL.
>
> Or are you worried about The Great Jewish Conspiracy? The source is
> there for your perusal, you know. Let us know if you find anything
> conspiratorial, will you?
As far as I can tell, there is no link from
www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com to clisp.
--
~jrm
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <uvfnvk3pc.fsf@gnu.org>
> * ace <··@fcnz.nby> [2003-12-31 14:20:08 -0700]:
> Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
<http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html#menorah>
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
If you're beeing passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * ace <··@fcnz.nby> [2003-12-31 14:20:08 -0700]:
> > Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
>
> <http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html#menorah>
I have only one quarrel with the menorah: it's too big. I don't
want that verbose a banner at startup time :-). (Yes, I know
about -q.)
Incidentally, the FAQ answer points to a Usenet article
by someone expressing worry that Jews have hidden special
secret bugs inside Emacs to cause trouble for Arabs ...
but, um, isn't it obviously a (rather tasteless) joke?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
One point that I wanted to bring up on this topic is that many
non-Jews mistakenly believe that the Menorah is a religious symbol. It
might have been in antiquity, but there isn't a single instance in any
practice of modern Judaism that makes use of the Menorah. Non-Jews
might be mistaking the seven-branched candelabra with the
nine-branched candelabra of the Jewish holiday of Hannukah, called the
Chanukiah.
The only remaining symbolism for the Jewish people in modern times
with the Menorah is as a symbol of the Jewish people, or Jewish
nation, before it was dispersed by the Roman expulsions of circa 70
A.D.
So, if one had a problem with the Menorah as a symbol of the Jewish
people of antiquity being used as the symbol of CLISP, I would imagine
that one would also object to the Apache web-server being named after
a tribe of Native Americans.
B'Shalom,
~Tomer Altman
On Jan 1, 2004 at 11:56am, Sam Steingold wrote:
sds >Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:56:31 -0500
sds >From: Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
sds >To: ace <··@spam.aol>
sds >Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
sds >Subject: Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
sds >
sds >> * ace <··@fcnz.nby> [2003-12-31 14:20:08 -0700]:
sds >> Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
sds >
sds ><http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html#menorah>
sds >
sds >
·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote in message news:<·······································@thar.lbl.gov>...
> So, if one had a problem with the Menorah as a symbol of the Jewish
> people of antiquity being used as the symbol of CLISP, I would imagine
> that one would also object to the Apache web-server being named after
> a tribe of Native Americans.
Except that it's not: it's called that because it started as a bunch
of patches to the NCSA web server, and was referred to a ``A Patchy
Server''.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> ·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote in message news:<·······································@thar.lbl.gov>...
>
>> So, if one had a problem with the Menorah as a symbol of the Jewish
>> people of antiquity being used as the symbol of CLISP, I would imagine
>> that one would also object to the Apache web-server being named after
>> a tribe of Native Americans.
>
> Except that it's not: it's called that because it started as a bunch
> of patches to the NCSA web server, and was referred to a ``A Patchy
> Server''.
True.
Wonder what the feather is for. :-|
Billy O'Connor <·······@gnuyork.org> wrote:
+---------------
| ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
| >> a tribe of Native Americans.
| >
| > Except that it's not: it's called that because it started as a bunch
| > of patches to the NCSA web server, and was referred to a ``A Patchy
| > Server''.
|
| True.
|
| Wonder what the feather is for. :-|
+---------------
It's a visible symbol of the backronym.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Jan 6, 2004 at 7:30pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
kaz >Date: 6 Jan 2004 19:30:19 -0800
kaz >From: Kaz Kylheku <···@ashi.footprints.net>
kaz >Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
kaz >Subject: Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
kaz >
kaz >·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote in message news:<·······································@thar.lbl.gov>...
kaz >> So, if one had a problem with the Menorah as a symbol of the Jewish
kaz >> people of antiquity being used as the symbol of CLISP, I would imagine
kaz >> that one would also object to the Apache web-server being named after
kaz >> a tribe of Native Americans.
kaz >
kaz >Except that it's not: it's called that because it started as a bunch
kaz >of patches to the NCSA web server, and was referred to a ``A Patchy
kaz >Server''.
I'm aware of the play-on-words that the developers of the Apache
Project used in naming their adaptation of the NCSA web server. But
it's irrespective of their pun; it's named "Apache", which is
*exactly* how the Native American tribe is known. My point was that
just the same way that the CLISP symbol whimsically incorporated, so
was the term "Apache" for a webserver. Both are symbols which are
indicative of particular cultural groups.
~Tomer Altman
On 2004-01-07 09:39:10, ·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote:
> it's irrespective of their pun; it's named "Apache", which is
> *exactly* how the Native American tribe is known. My point was that
> just the same way that the CLISP symbol whimsically incorporated, so
> was the term "Apache" for a webserver. Both are symbols which are
> indicative of particular cultural groups.
The Apache project doesn't have political statements in the FAQ. Or
radical political statements on the web pages of the main
developers.
CLISP is not neutral enough to be widely used.
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 09:39:10, ·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote:
>> it's irrespective of their pun; it's named "Apache", which is
>> *exactly* how the Native American tribe is known. My point was that
>> just the same way that the CLISP symbol whimsically incorporated, so
>> was the term "Apache" for a webserver. Both are symbols which are
>> indicative of particular cultural groups.
>
> The Apache project doesn't have political statements in the FAQ. Or
> radical political statements on the web pages of the main
> developers.
>
> CLISP is not neutral enough to be widely used.
What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors do
not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors
> do not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
peculiarity.
--
I think people have a moral obligation to spell "deontic" correctly.
-- Erik Naggum, in comp.lang.lisp
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> "Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
>
> > What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors
> > do not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
>
> it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
> schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
> peculiarity.
Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might want
to check it up: It's actually interesting.
Matthias wrote:
> Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might want
> to check it up: It's actually interesting.
As an enlightened european, I'd much rather they (re)started teaching a
decent level of compulsory trivia (grammar, logic, rhetoric) in all primary
schools (and NOT reserving the powers of critical thought for a privileged
few in gymnasia or the like) than banning silly symbols. They're only
empowering symbola by banning them, they could be immunising the population
against religion instead. But a trivially educated populace is a difficult
to control populace - terrible if propaganda^Wadvertising stopped working
on people, eh?
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
> Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might
> want to check it up: It's actually interesting.
I know about enlightenment, I'm just having trouble using the words
"enlightenment" and "intolerance" in the same sentence.
hth,
--m
--
The journey of a thousand miles begins with an open parenthesis.
-- Rainer Joswig
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>
> > "Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> >
> > > What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors
> > > do not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
> >
> > it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
> > schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
> > peculiarity.
>
> Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might want
> to check it up: It's actually interesting.
There's nothing particularly enlightened about banning
religious symbols in public schools, and there are plenty
of Europeans who realise this. (Me, for instance.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
>
> > Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors
> > > > do not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
> > >
> > > it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
> > > schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
> > > peculiarity.
> >
> > Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might want
> > to check it up: It's actually interesting.
>
> There's nothing particularly enlightened about banning
> religious symbols in public schools, and there are plenty
> of Europeans who realise this. (Me, for instance.)
[First, I apologize for this long and off-topic post. People who are
interested in Lisp can safely ignore it.]
As for the schools (esp. the students), I agree. But I think it was a
cultural advancement ultimately based on the ideas of enlightenment
not to "pollute" ones professional communication (as a politician, as
a software developer, as author, etc) with religious or ideological
views.
This has nothing to do with self-censorship. It has something to do
with respecting that others' beliefs are different. There is no
problem with a person wearing a religious or political symbol on her
clothes: There is someone expressing her beliefs and if I have
questions or concerns about it I can go and ask.
But if I advertise my beliefs in every text editor, every compiler,
every business letter, every political speech I write people can not
come to me immediately and ask me about it. It might even be hard for
them to avoid my propaganda. Maybe they start advertising /their/
views in their professional communication.
If everyone plasters the world with their symbols [1] it soon won't be
possible any more to have a decent professional conversation [2].
Worst of all: This advertisement won't lead to a better understanding
of each other.
So I am glad that most professionals realize: There are spaces where,
e.g., explicit [3] religious communication is important and there are
other spaces where it's best left away. For my taste, a text editor
and a speech about national security would belong in the latter group.
----
[1] I sometimes ask myself if the perception of symbols is different
with Europeans and Americans. We certainly behave differently (in
Germany certain (mostly Nazi-)symbols must not be displayed in public;
on the other hand Germans do not understand Americans' affection for
their flag). I haven't come conclusions in this regard yet.
[2] Note that Americans are much better trained in screening out
advertisement than are Europeans (but we are catching up!).
[3] Some might argue that if you are religious /all/ you communication
is affected by this. This is not what I mean here.
Matthias wrote:
> [1] I sometimes ask myself if the perception of symbols is different
> with Europeans and Americans. We certainly behave differently (in
> Germany certain (mostly Nazi-)symbols must not be displayed in public;
> on the other hand Germans do not understand Americans' affection for
> their flag). I haven't come conclusions in this regard yet.
In Europe, the Christian churches have had, and still have to a certain
extent, a lot of economic and therefore political power over centuries.
AFAIK, this is by far not the case in the US. I guess this is why
Europeans react more sensitive to the confusion of religious and secular
issues.
I find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
strange.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Matthias wrote:
>
> > [1] I sometimes ask myself if the perception of symbols is different
> > with Europeans and Americans. We certainly behave differently (in
> > Germany certain (mostly Nazi-)symbols must not be displayed in public;
> > on the other hand Germans do not understand Americans' affection for
> > their flag). I haven't come conclusions in this regard yet.
>
> In Europe, the Christian churches have had, and still have to a
> certain extent, a lot of economic and therefore political power over
> centuries. AFAIK, this is by far not the case in the US. I guess this
> is why Europeans react more sensitive to the confusion of religious
> and secular issues.
>
> I find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
> strange.
>
We're in large part a fundamentalist country, though perhaps somewhat
more tolerant of variety than others. We do seem to be slightly
insane right now, but hopefully will calm down a little before too
much longer.
Gregm
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
> We're in large part a fundamentalist country, though perhaps somewhat
> more tolerant of variety than others.
Well, I think (or at least I hope) that most well-educated europeans
know that you aren't _all_ like your Attorney General ;-)
--
(espen)
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> I find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
> strange.
The US is very different from most of Europe (and even Cananda, but in
especially Germany and Scandinavia) wrt. to religious/secular
values. Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
There's an interesting sociological paper on the topic here:
http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/papers/modern.shtml
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> The US is very different from most of Europe (and even Cananda, but in
> especially Germany and Scandinavia) wrt. to religious/secular
> values. Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
>
> There's an interesting sociological paper on the topic here:
> http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/papers/modern.shtml
Thanks for the link!
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
>
Though not all that close, the christianity in the US seems far more
fundamentalist in nature.
At least >60% of our population believes in evolution, apparently <35% of
people in the US do. [1]
[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <oet7rif9.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
> Espen Vestre wrote:
>
>> Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
>>
>
> Though not all that close, the christianity in the US seems far more
> fundamentalist in nature.
>
> At least >60% of our population believes in evolution, apparently <35% of
> people in the US do. [1]
> [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
51% believe ghosts exist.
31% believe in astrology.
27% believe in reincarnation.
41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <uad4r78ls.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:12:58 -0500, Joe Marshall ("Joe") writes:
Joe> David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
>> Espen Vestre wrote:
>>
>>> Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
>>>
>>
>> Though not all that close, the christianity in the US seems far more
>> fundamentalist in nature.
>>
>> At least >60% of our population believes in evolution, apparently <35% of
>> people in the US do. [1]
>> [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
> there are billions of stars.
Anecdotal evidence, the best kind, right? Now, you can take issue with the
survey I linked to (it seems... just crazy... to me that that many people
in a "western" industrialised nation, where most people use seriously
high-tech stuff that the authors of the bible or koran or whatever could
never have dreamed of every day, could have the beliefs attributed to the
bulk of the people of the USA in it. So I know _I_ am deeply suspicious of
the survey.). But at least I _tried_ to present some vaguely real evidence
- your little tale doesn't refute the survey results, which were after all
statistical in nature.
> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
Well, I know from bitter experience that the problem isn't specific to the
USA. But it seems to be worse in the USA than elsewhere in the
traditionally "Western" bloc. That's not to say it's not worrying here,
too - I'm not pointing to the USA and saying "well, at least we're not as
bad as them!", I point to them as an example "look, we could be going to
end up as bad as them or worse if we're not careful!".
Organised religion seems to be doing its best to destroy itself without my
help over here actually, so personally, I'm more worried about the way the
brightest and most inquisitive minds are be being zonked with drugs to
keep 'em quiet across the "West" - sometimes against parent's wishes! But
again, that seems to be most prevalent in the USA, though is occuring here
too, depressingly. Shades of Brave New World. The USA becoming what it
hated.
I KNOW there are well-educated americans. I KNOW there are poorly-educated
french people. And I know we shouldn't generalise, because that's what
they do in Russia ;-), but the USA is presently getting pretty worrying.
At the same time, be wary of divide-and-conquer! The enemies of the bulk of
the people of Europe are not the bulk of the people of the USA, it's the
bunch of truly international assholes who manipulate both, secure in the
knowledge almost everyone will blame a more obvious "other side" instead of
them.
>>>>> "DG" == David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
DG> ... (it seems... just
DG> crazy... to me that that many people in a "western"
DG> industrialised nation, where most people use seriously
DG> high-tech stuff that the authors of the bible or koran or
DG> whatever could never have dreamed of every day, could have the
DG> beliefs attributed to the bulk of the people of the USA in it.
DG> So I know _I_ am deeply suspicious of the survey.). ...
Hmm, maybe not asking people about those things outright but trying to
figure out indirectly whether their professed beliefs affects their
behaviour might be more fruitful. Pew research sometimes sneaks in
interesting questions in their attitude surveys (one I remember was
'does one need faith in God to be moral?' for example). Anyway those
things can be a fun way to waste your time sometimes even though I don't
think anything they do can beat that Noah's wife thing for giggles.
The one I seem to have bookmarked is this:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185
cheers,
BM
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
> Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
> Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
> Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
> Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
> Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
> Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
> Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
> Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
>
> Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
>
> Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
>
> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
> there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
> only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
> galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
> a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
>
> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but anecdotal, sample-of-one
"evidence" is not particularly convincing.
Bj�rn
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <u4quznjvw.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 00:58:25 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
>>
Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
>>
Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
>>
>> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
>> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
>> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
>> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
>> there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
>> only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
>> galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
>> a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
>>
>> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
>> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
Bj�rn> I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but anecdotal, sample-of-one
Bj�rn> "evidence" is not particularly convincing.
You mean as opposed to the evidence presented on the subject in such
humerous venues as the Jay Leno show that people like to cite?
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 00:58:25 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
>
> Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
> Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
> Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
> Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
> Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
> Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
> Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
> Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
> Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
> >>
> Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
> >>
> Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
> >>
> >> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
> >> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
> >> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
> >> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
> >> there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
> >> only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
> >> galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
> >> a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
> >>
> >> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
> >> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
>
> Bj�rn> I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but anecdotal, sample-of-one
> Bj�rn> "evidence" is not particularly convincing.
>
> You mean as opposed to the evidence presented on the subject in such
> humerous venues as the Jay Leno show that people like to cite?
But no one did. Joe didn't give a reference for his statistics, but
assuming a credible source (why? perhaps because Joe is well-known in
this forum, and is himself credible), his references surely beat
yours.
Bj�rn
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <3caisffq.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
·······@nada.kth.se (Bj�rn Lindberg) writes:
> Joe didn't give a reference for his statistics,
I was just quoting them from the link that David Golden supplied:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
I excerpted what I thought were the more entertaining ones.
> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>>>> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
You can't beat first-hand knowledge as a reference, but the sample
size is small.
>>>> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
>>>> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
Perish the thought.
It is a pity that stupidity isn't particularly painful.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <u3caiwnlw.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 11:15:14 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>> >>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 00:58:25 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
>>
Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
>> >>
Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
>> >>
Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
>> >>
>> >> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
>> >> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
>> >> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
>> >> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
>> >> there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
>> >> only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
>> >> galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
>> >> a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
>> >>
>> >> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
>> >> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
>>
Bj�rn> I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but anecdotal, sample-of-one
Bj�rn> "evidence" is not particularly convincing.
>>
>> You mean as opposed to the evidence presented on the subject in such
>> humerous venues as the Jay Leno show that people like to cite?
Bj�rn> But no one did. Joe didn't give a reference for his statistics, but
Bj�rn> assuming a credible source (why? perhaps because Joe is well-known in
Bj�rn> this forum, and is himself credible), his references surely beat
Bj�rn> yours.
My assertion is that stupidity is not exclusively (nor necessarily,
although I didn't say that) a phenomenon of people who are educated
in the USA -- I suggested only people who harbor a prejudice against
Americans as being uniquely poorly educated ought to reconsider.
I can't begin to understand the point of your bizarre argument with that.
At face value, your argument appears to be some jingoistic nonsense
that a prejudice against Americans is well-founded, because our
education system is so poor.
Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language invented
by people who were educated in that inferior American system, and why
you are communicating your opinions using the networking technology
that they invented?
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 11:15:14 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
>
> Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >> >>>>> On 14 Jan 2004 00:58:25 +0100, Bj�rn Lindberg ("Bj�rn") writes:
> >>
> Bj�rn> ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
> Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
> Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
> Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
> Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
> Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
> Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
> Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
> Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
> >> >>
> Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
> >> >>
> Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was chatting the other day with a fellow who was educated in France.
> >> >> This is a middle-class "educated" guy who works in the computer field.
> >> >> He's been in the US for years, and now his little child is enrolled
> >> >> elementary school. The father was amazed to learn from the child that
> >> >> there are billions of stars. Previously he thought that there were
> >> >> only a few, since that's all he could see, nor did he know what a
> >> >> galaxy was, etc. He still does not understand the difference between
> >> >> a star and a planet: "A star is a planet that's on fire, right?".
> >> >>
> >> >> People may wish to reconsider any prejudices they have that suggest
> >> >> that the problem with education systems is specific to the USA.
> >>
> Bj�rn> I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but anecdotal, sample-of-one
> Bj�rn> "evidence" is not particularly convincing.
> >>
> >> You mean as opposed to the evidence presented on the subject in such
> >> humerous venues as the Jay Leno show that people like to cite?
>
> Bj�rn> But no one did. Joe didn't give a reference for his statistics, but
> Bj�rn> assuming a credible source (why? perhaps because Joe is well-known in
> Bj�rn> this forum, and is himself credible), his references surely beat
> Bj�rn> yours.
>
> My assertion is that stupidity is not exclusively (nor necessarily,
> although I didn't say that) a phenomenon of people who are educated
> in the USA -- I suggested only people who harbor a prejudice against
> Americans as being uniquely poorly educated ought to reconsider.
>
> I can't begin to understand the point of your bizarre argument with that.
> At face value, your argument appears to be some jingoistic nonsense
> that a prejudice against Americans is well-founded, because our
> education system is so poor.
Eh, what? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else? In
my first sentence I wrote "I have no opinion on the issue at hand", ie
I do not have an opinion wether the population of this or that country
in general are better or worse educated than any other. My comment was
on your exchange with Joe, which went roughly as follows:
J: Here is statistical data showing that Americans in general are
poorly educated.
C: Well, here is an anecdote showing that people in other countries
are just as poorly educated.
I took issue with your evidence for such an assertion.
As a sidenote, I once saw a study on EU citizens with similar data
which wasn't particularly uplifting either.
> Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language invented
> by people who were educated in that inferior American system, and why
> you are communicating your opinions using the networking technology
> that they invented?
Perhaps John McCarthy is one of the well educated Americans? Besides,
Bjarne Stroustrup... ah, nevermind.
;-)
Bj�rn
Bj?rn Lindberg <·······@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> J: Here is statistical data showing that Americans in general are
> poorly educated.
>
> C: Well, here is an anecdote showing that people in other countries
> are just as poorly educated.
>
> I took issue with your evidence for such an assertion.
>
> As a sidenote, I once saw a study on EU citizens with similar data
> which wasn't particularly uplifting either.
Something to consider: It does not make one an educated person, for one
to merely harbor as uninformed prejudices or rote memorization the same
beliefs that educated people hold as integrated, understood knowledge.
Simply holding true beliefs does not make one educated.
But, at the same time, if every ignorant script-kiddie in the world
decided (following a fad, let's say) that Lisp is superior to Visual
Basic, this would not make that belief _false_. For ignorant people to
hold a belief does not make that belief false.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
* Christopher C. Stacy
| Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
| invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
| system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
| networking technology that they invented?
I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
--
Erik Naggum | Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Christopher C. Stacy
> | Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
> | invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
> | system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
> | networking technology that they invented?
>
> I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
> the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
I believe facist countries do that as well. If you believe
(equal facist communist), then, of course, this adds nothing.
/Jon
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Christopher C. Stacy
> | Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
> | invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
> | system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
> | networking technology that they invented?
>
> I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
> the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
France isn't a communist country!
Curt <·····@freeze.invalid> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > * Christopher C. Stacy
> > | Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
> > | invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
> > | system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
> > | networking technology that they invented?
> >
> > I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
> > the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
>
> France isn't a communist country!
Nor is the US, which can almost certainly best France on this one.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Curt <·····@freeze.invalid> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > * Christopher C. Stacy
> > | Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
> > | invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
> > | system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
> > | networking technology that they invented?
> >
> > I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
> > the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
>
> France isn't a communist country!
In my opinion, the only difference between France and a communist
country is that the word "People" does not appear in its official
name.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
In article <··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote:
>Curt <·····@freeze.invalid> writes:
>
>> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>>
>> > * Christopher C. Stacy
>> > | Must I ask why you have decided to use as programming language
>> > | invented by people who were educated in that inferior American
>> > | system, and why you are communicating your opinions using the
>> > | networking technology that they invented?
>> >
>> > I thought only communist countries credited their ideology and
>> > the people with the achievements of their individual citizens.
>>
>> France isn't a communist country!
>
>In my opinion, the only difference between France and a communist
>country is that the word "People" does not appear in its official
>name.
Jesus Christ!, guys, you just don't know what's going
on over there.
(Here in/near NYC the city's education-dept has a tv-station,
WNYE, ch-25 and on the cable it's ch-22 -- plus a same-named
radio-station, at 91.5fm.
The tv station shows, daily at 7pm, the french "channel 2"
news, *with subtitles* (nice!).)
That place maybe *used* to provide lots of benefits to
the poor -- well, the average citizen too, like
free education, through university, and good govt salaries
and pensions and medical, etc, etc, etc.
Man, it's all going away, FAST.
Just on one day's news, TODAY'S, they covered:
. Govt is taking some 600 medicines off their "list",
ie they (govt) won't provide *any* benefit to
those who need those drugs -- AND, as you might
expect, from knowing how that bill Bush just
signed on Medicare that forbid the US from
making *any* deals with pharm-corps to place
ceilings on the prices they can charge --
because the govt is freeing these 600 drugs,
the manufacturers get to raise the price -- WHICH
THEY ALREADY HAVE DONE, the example shown today
going up by a factor of THREE.
. Jeez, it's gotten so late (4:51am) I can't remember
the two other things, but the people are PISSED --
oh, I remember now, at least that it involved them
"privatizing" something (big).
(Hey, that's happening here, UK, France, ... just about
EVERYWHERE -- even in iraq, where it's rammed down
their throats with the barrel of an M1A1 60+ton tank.)
This privatization stuff -- what are its *real* effects?
(We're *told* that it's so very much *efficient* than
those goddamn dead-wood lazy-ass insolent GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES!)
Suppose your town is going to privatize, say, your fire dept,
or the sanitation-dept, the road-repair-and-upkeep dept, etc.
NOW, you get taxed for those services, and that money is
paid out, mostly, to *people* -- often people who
live not too differently from you, their kids go to the
same schools your kids go to, you shop at the same grocery-store,
etc. Your money leaves your wallet and enters someone
else's wallet -- right nearby. It gets fed back, in a large part,
HERE, where you LIVE.
WITH PRIVATIZATION: Those guys lose their jobs, or at least
no longer work for the city, and those jobs basically
cease to exist. Now, your money goes to a CORPORATION,
perhaps even a BIG corporation. Suppose that, by a miracle,
the service stays the same; you're just as happy as before,
but now LET'S FOLLOW YOUR MONEY.
It's said that in Iraq, at least, Halliburton, etc, turn
a profit of TEN PERCENT or more -- almost guaranteed.
Now, that money that now flows into this corp, at
least 10% ends up "diverted", so to speak, *funneled*
into PROFIT, ie eps, divends, etc, PLUS these *huge*
salaries, benefits, bonuses for the CEO, (eg $50, 20,
$80 MILLION -- per YEAR!).
So, that money that's "diverted" straight out of your pocket,
goes OUT OF the pockets of people like you, and INTO
those of the super-super rich.
It's invariably a *transfer* of money UP.
-------
That argument is way unfinished, but it's SO DAMN LATE
(5:15am) I've just got to end it here, un-proofed,
un--made-readable, ...
YOU try taking that argument further, along the SAME
line (privitazation *means* month that once stayed
here now ends up owned by your "betters". A transfer
of money UP.
Bye for now.
David
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> (We're *told* that it's so very much *efficient* than
> those goddamn dead-wood lazy-ass insolent GOVERNMENT
> EMPLOYEES!)
The really weak part of that argument is that most large corporations
are no more efficient than state-run organizations.
In fact those corporations have a regime that is pretty close to being
stalinist. As a consequence, new ideas, initiative, personal
responsibility etc. is suppressed inside the corporation. Dozens of
posters on this newsgroup can tell a story about that. Dilbert is
sometimes too close to the truth to make me laugh.
Now that the iron curtain is long gone, it's about time to liberate
private enterprise and introduce democracy where people spend almost
half of their conscious life! Mr. Bush, you are fighting the wrong
war!
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> ·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>
> > (We're *told* that it's so very much *efficient* than
> > those goddamn dead-wood lazy-ass insolent GOVERNMENT
> > EMPLOYEES!)
>
> The really weak part of that argument is that most large corporations
> are no more efficient than state-run organizations.
>
> In fact those corporations have a regime that is pretty close to being
> stalinist.
Which isn't surprising, they're both the brain-children of petty
bourgeois bureaucrats.
> Now that the iron curtain is long gone, it's about time to liberate
> private enterprise and introduce democracy where people spend almost
> half of their conscious life! Mr. Bush, you are fighting the wrong
> war!
He's fighting it, but not on the side you'd like. In the state I live
in, California, public officials have admitted/boasted on record that
they use their recent "anti-terrorism" powers to spy on unions, and
state and federal officials have said they consider strikes to be
"threats to national security".
(Time to go hide under my bed again...)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <87smhlq7c6.fsf@nyct.net>
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> in, California, public officials have admitted/boasted on record that
> they use their recent "anti-terrorism" powers to spy on unions, and
> state and federal officials have said they consider strikes to be
> "threats to national security".
To bring this statement to the context of earlier messages in the
thread, unions are just as bad as large monopolies. How else would west
coast longshoremen be paid many times the salaries of the east coast
longshoremen for doing pretty much the same job? The union just
monopolized the whole coast while on the east coast, there is
competition between the unionized northeast and the ununionized
southeast, as I understand the situation.
That said, I think that any kind of monopolistic abuses can be potential
threats to national security. For example, the grocery workers forcing
the grocers to increase their prices and the grocers increasing their
prices are the same thing to the consumer. If a monopolistic grocer
wants to extort money from a region in an emergency, they can squeeze
the consumers till they (literally) almost die. The grocery workers'
union can squeeze the grocers till they almost die and are forced to
pass on the increases to the consumers just as in the previous
situation.
That said, using the term communism^Wterrorism as a way to get
carte-blanche powers is equally despicable.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > in, California, public officials have admitted/boasted on record that
> > they use their recent "anti-terrorism" powers to spy on unions, and
> > state and federal officials have said they consider strikes to be
> > "threats to national security".
>
> To bring this statement to the context of earlier messages in the
> thread, unions are just as bad as large monopolies. How else would west
> coast longshoremen be paid many times the salaries of the east coast
> longshoremen for doing pretty much the same job? The union just
> monopolized the whole coast while on the east coast, there is
> competition between the unionized northeast and the ununionized
> southeast, as I understand the situation.
Yeah, having some workers unorganized brings down everyone's quality
of life. What's wrong with the ILWU's making more? To quote James
Cannon: "Nothing's too good for the working class."
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Yeah, having some workers unorganized brings down everyone's quality
> of life. What's wrong with the ILWU's making more?
The fact that we all all made poorer? If you artificially raise the
price of something, you get less of it. The price of imported goods
will rise. We _all_ become poorer because we forfeit part of the
relative cost advantage of buying goods more efficiently produced
abroad.
One can think of this scenario as a tax on imports. Except that with
a real tax, you actually get some benefits from the government. In
this case you get nothing for paying the tax! Yippee, what a great
policy.
-russ
Russell McManus <···············@yahoo.com> writes:
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > Yeah, having some workers unorganized brings down everyone's quality
> > of life. What's wrong with the ILWU's making more?
[snip]
> In this case you get nothing for paying the tax!
Strictly speaking, you "get" other peoples happines. I don't know how
much this is worth to you, nor am I saying that you should give a
damn. Just pointing out that depending on your point of view, it might
not be completely pointless.
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Now that the iron curtain is long gone, it's about time to liberate
> private enterprise and introduce democracy where people spend almost
> half of their conscious life! Mr. Bush, you are fighting the wrong
> war!
Actually, I think this is precisely the war he really is fighting.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> The really weak part of that argument is that most large corporations
> are no more efficient than state-run organizations.
However, corporations have very different incentives from state
organizations. They also operate in very different circumstances
(mostly). For instance, the state normally need not worry about
competition or going bankrupt.
> In fact those corporations have a regime that is pretty close to being
> stalinist. As a consequence, new ideas, initiative, personal
> responsibility etc. is suppressed inside the corporation. Dozens of
> posters on this newsgroup can tell a story about that. Dilbert is
> sometimes too close to the truth to make me laugh.
Large corporations can be stifling, quite true. I've worked for two.
The same goes for state organizations; I've worked for one of those
too.
The question of whether to run a centralized command-and-control
organization or a more loosely organized one, however, has been
debated for a very long time; the solution has not universally been to
do stalinism. Perhaps you simply would be more satisfied in a smaller
company?
> Now that the iron curtain is long gone, it's about time to liberate
> private enterprise and introduce democracy where people spend almost
> half of their conscious life! Mr. Bush, you are fighting the wrong
> war!
We vote about who should get to spend the taxes we pay; as employees,
we get paid for our work. See the difference?
A business is already roughly as democratic as it has to be ("roughly"
because it might be useful to tinker with how minority ownership
should be treated, and suchlike).
If you want to vote about how things should be run, there are two
straightforward solutions: buy stock in the private company you work
for (or start your own, by all means) and vote; or get a government
job.
In a number of european countries, there is a third solution: there
are worker representatives on the board (I have been one myself, in a
small company). You could try for one of those as well.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> writes:
> The question of whether to run a centralized command-and-control
> organization or a more loosely organized one, however, has been
> debated for a very long time; the solution has not universally been to
> do stalinism. Perhaps you simply would be more satisfied in a smaller
> company?
If you ask me personally: I work for a small company, and I am
happy as a clam :-)
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> writes:
>
> > The question of whether to run a centralized command-and-control
> > organization or a more loosely organized one, however, has been
> > debated for a very long time; the solution has not universally been to
> > do stalinism. Perhaps you simply would be more satisfied in a smaller
> > company?
>
> If you ask me personally: I work for a small company, and I am
> happy as a clam :-)
There you go then. Mammals outcompete dinosaurs and all that :-)
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <d68s9s03.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
> Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
>>
>> If you ask me personally: I work for a small company, and I am
>> happy as a clam :-)
Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> writes:
> There you go then. Mammals outcompete dinosaurs and all that :-)
I thought clams were mollusks.
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> > Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> >>
> >> If you ask me personally: I work for a small company, and I am
> >> happy as a clam :-)
>
> Thomas Lindgren <···········@*****.***> writes:
> > There you go then. Mammals outcompete dinosaurs and all that :-)
>
> I thought clams were mollusks.
To continue the analogy, Espen would then be a clam inside a mammal.
Though that doesn't have quite the right ring to it. "Far better to be
a clam inside a mammal than one inside a dinosaur!" Hm. Back to the
drawing board, I guess.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <87wu6xq7uq.fsf@nyct.net>
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> ·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>
>> (We're *told* that it's so very much *efficient* than
>> those goddamn dead-wood lazy-ass insolent GOVERNMENT
>> EMPLOYEES!)
>
> The really weak part of that argument is that most large corporations
> are no more efficient than state-run organizations.
At least we can create competitors on the same footing as those large
corporations and we aren't forced to pay the corporations for things we
don't want. (I consider government-subsidised corporations to be a weak
approximation to state-run organizations.)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
> At least we can create competitors on the same footing as those large
> corporations and we aren't forced to pay the corporations for things we
> don't want. (I consider government-subsidised corporations to be a weak
> approximation to state-run organizations.)
I found it very difficult to buy a laptop without paying Microsoft for
an operating system I didn't want. For that matter I was unable three
years ago to get broadband internet access without buying cable tv and
telephone service from the local cable franchise.
OK, so governments typically bundle their value-add services on more
fundamental things like "having a fixed address" or "being able to
call on the services of the police", but it's more a difference of
quantity than quality.
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
>
> > At least we can create competitors on the same footing as those large
> > corporations and we aren't forced to pay the corporations for things we
> > don't want. (I consider government-subsidised corporations to be a weak
> > approximation to state-run organizations.)
>
> I found it very difficult to buy a laptop without paying Microsoft for
> an operating system I didn't want. For that matter I was unable three
> years ago to get broadband internet access without buying cable tv and
> telephone service from the local cable franchise.
>
> OK, so governments typically bundle their value-add services on more
> fundamental things like "having a fixed address" or "being able to
> call on the services of the police", but it's more a difference of
> quantity than quality.
Indeed in both case, it's practices of the Mafia.
What we'd want is true libertarianism.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
[...]
PB> What we'd want is true libertarianism.
That clearly would help with gov't taxation, but how would it help with the
present MS tax on hardware? (unless, that is, IP loses the P status).
Is it just me or is the sentiment above getting voiced more more often
by posters here? It turns out I either am or can fake being an Austrian
100% [1] and I had no idea what that meant before Fred G. posted a link
here to mises.org. Now I wonder if there's a correlation between
libertarian leanings and lisp use.
cheers,
BM
[1] http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> >>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> [...]
> PB> What we'd want is true libertarianism.
>
> That clearly would help with gov't taxation, but how would it help with the
> present MS tax on hardware? (unless, that is, IP loses the P status).
Indeed, under a libertarian state, copyrights and patents would be
quite different.
If a hardware maker wanted to, he could still contract with Microsoft
to sell his OS, but there would be less incentives for all of them to
do it.
> Is it just me or is the sentiment above getting voiced more more often
> by posters here? It turns out I either am or can fake being an Austrian
> 100% [1] and I had no idea what that meant before Fred G. posted a link
> here to mises.org. Now I wonder if there's a correlation between
> libertarian leanings and lisp use.
>
> cheers,
>
> BM
>
> [1] http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: [OT] GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <87ekszoiml.fsf@nyct.net>
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> I found it very difficult to buy a laptop without paying Microsoft for
> an operating system I didn't want.
That's a situation on par with unions going on strike.
> For that matter I was unable three
> years ago to get broadband internet access without buying cable tv and
> telephone service from the local cable franchise.
This is a bit more complex. You've got a huge capital outlay involved in
setting up such a network. At least we have a few wires running into our
houses and can choose which of those we'd like to use for our internet
access...
> OK, so governments typically bundle their value-add services on more
> fundamental things like "having a fixed address" or "being able to
> call on the services of the police", but it's more a difference of
> quantity than quality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> This privatization stuff -- what are its *real* effects?
>
> (We're *told* that it's so very much *efficient* than
> those goddamn dead-wood lazy-ass insolent GOVERNMENT
> EMPLOYEES!)
>
> Suppose your town is going to privatize, say, your fire dept,
> or the sanitation-dept, the road-repair-and-upkeep dept, etc.
>
> NOW, you get taxed for those services, and that money is
> paid out, mostly, to *people* -- often people who
> live not too differently from you, their kids go to the
> same schools your kids go to, you shop at the same grocery-store,
> etc. Your money leaves your wallet and enters someone
> else's wallet -- right nearby. It gets fed back, in a large part,
> HERE, where you LIVE.
>
> WITH PRIVATIZATION: Those guys lose their jobs, or at least
> no longer work for the city, and those jobs basically
> cease to exist. Now, your money goes to a CORPORATION,
> perhaps even a BIG corporation. Suppose that, by a miracle,
> the service stays the same; you're just as happy as before,
> but now LET'S FOLLOW YOUR MONEY.
> [...]
> It's invariably a *transfer* of money UP.
This is not privatization.
When a city/state subcontracts a "public" service, there's no difference.
They just delegate their monopole to their friend's corporation.
What's lacking is competition.
They should not "privatize", they should refrain from any
non-governmental activity (ie: police, and military).
Actually, I'd be perfectly happy with a state that would run several
operations, as long as there is true competition. That would not be
possible because since states get the monopole of the use of force,
they invariably take monopole in any other operation it engage into.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
My views....
> Joe> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
Not sure --- but not impossible.
> Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
Yes, though "place" must be understood metaphorically. More like "state".
> Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
Yes
> Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Yes
> Joe> 51% believe ghosts exist.
Probably not.
> Joe> 31% believe in astrology.
No (especially not as taught and practiced today).
> Joe> 27% believe in reincarnation.
No (but instead, resurrection)
> Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
No --- but totally accurate from the human perspective of those who
were writing it, and totally accurate as revealing God's intentions.
> Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
Yes
>
> Joe> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
Uh...
>
> Joe> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
If this be ignorance, then make the most of it.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
When trying to reach the lowest common denominator, you have to be
prepared for the occasional division by zero.
It's been a while since we've had a serious religious discussion on
comp.lang.lisp --- there was a short-lived one back in 1999.
I know this is off-topic (see the subject line). If it bugs you,
don't read it. I don't want to change anyone's faith, I'm just
curious about the response to the religious survey excerpts.
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> My views....
If we narrow this down, we get this:
>> Joe> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
> No --- but totally accurate from the human perspective of those who
> were writing it, and totally accurate as revealing God's intentions.
From which these logically follow:
>> Joe> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
> Yes
>> Joe> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
> Yes, though "place" must be understood metaphorically. More like "state".
>> Joe> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
> Yes
>> Joe> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
> Yes
So let me just focus on the question of Biblical accuracy.
The first thing is to determine which Bible. Various religions have
differing opinions as to what scriptures are canonical. Most
Christian churches agree on these books in the old testament:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles,
2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah,
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
The Protestant and Catholic churches agree on these books in the new
testament:
Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John,
Acts of the Apostles, Epistle to the Romans, 1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Epistle to
Titus, Epistle to Philemon, Epistle to Hebrews, Epistle of James,
1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Epistle of Jude, Book of
Revelation
The Ethiopian Orthodox also include these books:
I & II Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas
Some people hold the belief that the Bible is `infallible' and
`inerrant' and thus historically accurate down to the smallest
detail. Any evidence whatsoever that suggests otherwise is being
misinterpreted. The difficulty with this viewpoint is that there are
simple arithmetic discrepencies between the various books:
2 Samuel 24:9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the
king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men
who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to
David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men
who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy
thousand in Judah.
Or factual discrepancies:
Numbers 33:38 At the LORD's command Aaron the priest went up Mount
Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the
fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:6 (The Israelites traveled from the wells of the
Jaakanites to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar
his son succeeded him as priest.
or
Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.
Then he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought
a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
intestines spilled out.
It is clear that the Bible cannot be understood as a simple collection
of accurate facts in the same way an almanac might be. There must be
*at least* metaphor, omissions of detail, colloquialisms, translation
ambiguities, etc.
The question now becomes this: For an arbitrary passage in the Bible,
how can one tell?
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> It is clear that the Bible cannot be understood as a simple collection
> of accurate facts in the same way an almanac might be. There must be
> *at least* metaphor, omissions of detail, colloquialisms, translation
> ambiguities, etc.
>
> The question now becomes this: For an arbitrary passage in the Bible,
> how can one tell?
The Catholic Church does not hold "sola scriptura", the Protestant tenet
which informs Fundamentalism and Biblical literalism -- the belief that
the whole of religious knowledge is contained within the Scriptures.
Catholics believe, rather, that the Scriptures can only be interpreted
in the light of the religious tradition which canonized the Scriptures
in the first place.
We may see the same issue in the interpretation of computing standards.
If one wishes to set out implementing a standard, or learning how to use
something documented by a standard, should one rely solely on the text
of the standard itself -- or should one also learn from the process by
which the standard was created, and the history of its interpretation
and implementation since?
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:59:41 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu>
wrote:
[ snip ]
>
>The question now becomes this: For an arbitrary passage in the Bible,
>how can one tell?
Is this discussion biblical, or of generic religious ideas, in nature
? Because there are other 'works' (unarguably by the hand of man)
which all show a strikingly similar behaviour...
I dont think that God has time to waste on such puny creatures as us,
out of this whole universe, so as to write guiding material. He may
be better occupied in devising new singularities to amuse his kind. I
dont think he would care less if the tigers ate us out or we ate the
tigers out here on good old Earth.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [OT] Way off topic: religion
Date:
Message-ID: <hdyx30lv.fsf@comcast.net>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> It's been a while since we've had a serious religious discussion on
> comp.lang.lisp --- there was a short-lived one back in 1999.
>
Let's take this one to email.
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
>
> > Espen Vestre wrote:
> >
> >> Only Ireland is quite close to the US.
> >>
> >
> > Though not all that close, the christianity in the US seems far more
> > fundamentalist in nature.
> >
> > At least >60% of our population believes in evolution, apparently <35% of
> > people in the US do. [1]
> > [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
>
>
> 24% of American adults expect to be still alive when Jesus returns.
> 73% believe Hell exists and is a place you may go when you die.
> 93% believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
For this one, I'd tend to believe it. Or does artificial insemination
count as defloration?
> 88% believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
> 51% believe ghosts exist.
> 31% believe in astrology.
> 27% believe in reincarnation.
> 41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
> 79% believe miracles in the Bible actually happened.
>
> 12% believe that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc.
>
> If ignorance is bliss, we are a happy bunch here in the US.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote:
> find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
> strange.
As a Christian and an American, and I hope still an open-minded person,
it seems that the assertion of fundamentalist and/or conservative
Christianity in current American politics is driven by the need in
America to confront evil. During the Cold War, the evil foe was the
USSR and communism, which was commonly described as "godless."
Now that godless communism is gone, the foe for many is godless
secularism. Though I believe in God, it troubles me that a person who
does not believe in God must fear the influence of people who insist one
must believe or be unworthy of respect. When people are thus pressured
to believe, I don't think it's a faith God would believe.
--
Geoffrey S. Knauth | http://knauth.org/gsk
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> I find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
> strange.
>
You have to remember that a major theme in American history has
been that we are (As Bill Murray put it) a nation of people who
"got kicked out of every respectable country in the world."
Lots of them got kicked out for religious reasons. You've got the
puritan migration very early, The russian mennonite migration at
when the Tsars were initiating their first pogroms, the hutterite
and dukaburr migrations, jews who fled here to escape european
prejudice in the 1830's and then more jews who came here as
refugees before, during and after WWII, Irish catholics (and
protestants) who came here to get away from the troubles, and it
goes on.
Another thing we've had in America that's different from in Europe
is ... Land. For most of our history, it has been possible for
some wild-eyed fanatics to head out into the wilderness and found
their own community. In a way, that's what the puritans were doing
at the very beginning. The Oneida and Shaker communities couldn't
have existed in Europe, and anything like the Mormon colonization
of Utah would have been completely impossible. The hippie communes
of the '60s and '70s were, socially at least, a sort of religious
movement. To this day, you still get little bands of people (people
who are functionally if not necessarily overtly religious in their
ability to believe in utopias and perfected societies) setting up
attempted utopias in the middle of arid boondocks where land is $20
an acre and water is $.50 a gallon. Most leave ghost towns, but
some wind up figuring out new ways of doing things, develop the
area usefully and grow into thriving communities. The thing is,
most of the land in america was harsh boondocks at one time, and
people didn't tend to go out there if they fit into regular society.
So, between founder effect, and the fact that most of the new
territory has been developed mostly by the disaffected, ideologues,
and misfits whose descendants are still the major population of
those areas, I can't really be very surprised that religion in
America is fairly strong, and of a different underlying makeup
than religion in Europe.
Bear
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<·················@sonic.net>...
> Lots of them got kicked out for religious reasons. You've got the
> puritan migration very early, The russian mennonite migration at
> when the Tsars were initiating their first pogroms, the hutterite
> and dukaburr migrations, jews who fled here to escape european
That would be ``doukhobor''. :)
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<·················@sonic.net>...
> > Lots of them got kicked out for religious reasons. You've got the
> > puritan migration very early, The russian mennonite migration at
> > when the Tsars were initiating their first pogroms, the hutterite
> > and dukaburr migrations, jews who fled here to escape european
>
> That would be ``doukhobor''. :)
Aha! The Doukhobors! Well, I have to point out that the Doukhobors
went to Canada and this happened at the end of the 19th century. Thus,
I fail to grasp how the Doukhobors are related to life in the U.S..
If you are interested in the Doukhobors' movement, you may visit the
page about it at <http://www.doukhobor-homepage.com/history_who.html>
or another one at <http://www.doukhobor-homepage.com/history_timeline.html>.
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<·················@sonic.net>...
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
> >
> > I find the apparently wide-spread religiousness of US americans very
> > strange.
> >
>
> You have to remember that a major theme in American history has
> been that we are (As Bill Murray put it) a nation of people who
> "got kicked out of every respectable country in the world."
>
> Lots of them got kicked out for religious reasons. You've got the
> puritan migration very early, The russian mennonite migration at
> when the Tsars were initiating their first pogroms...
>
Your information about the mennonites is not quite correct.
Originally, the mennonites fled *to* Russia from many catholic and
protestant countires. For example, there was a noticable immigration
of mennonites from Germany to Russia. The mennonites were persecuted
in Germany because they refused to serve in the army for religious
reasons. In Russia, however, they were freed from the military
service. Because in 1762 Russian queen Ekaterina II passed a decree
that releaved Russian mennonites from the obligatory military service.
The real persecution of the mennonites in Russia began after 1920. The
persecution was initiated by the new communist government.
What other "pogroms" did Russian Tsars came up with? If you have in
mind the pogroms in Ukraine, then I have to dissappoint you. They have
nothing to do with Russian Tsars. The only substantial religious
persecution in pre-communist Russia that I can think of concerned the
so-called Old Believers who broke away from the Russian Orthodox
Church beacuse of the disagreements with the reforms in the church.
They never fled in large numbers to America but ran to Siberia instead
and formed their settlements there.
····@yandex.ru (Tyro) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> What other "pogroms" did Russian Tsars came up with? If you have in
> mind the pogroms in Ukraine, then I have to dissappoint you. They have
> nothing to do with Russian Tsars.
There were pogroms in southern Russia against the Jews in the late
19th century:
<http://books.cambridge.org/0521405327.htm> links to a monograph about
these entitled _Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History_. Note
that the first wave of pogroms in Russia took place from 1881-1884,
when the Tsar was still in control (i.e., long *before* the Communist
Revolution).
Moreover, since Ukraine was under the political control of Russia and
the Tsar at the time of the 19th century Ukrainian pogroms, (in fact,
Russia outlawed the use of the Ukranian language during this period),
and the authorities not only did nothing to stop the pogroms, but
sometimes encouraged or instigated them, then we can say that the
anti-Jewish pogroms formed a pattern of the Tsar's domestic policy.
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote:
> monograph
That should be "collection of articles" not monograph
Raffael Cavallaro <················@junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> writes:
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
> ·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote:
>
> > monograph
> That should be "collection of articles" not monograph
If all the articles concern the same subject, monograph should do. I
think the important aspect of the monograph is not the unicity of its
constituents, but that of its subject. Note how only the undefined
particule is used for the document, and how the words "single thing"
or "particular subjects" are used about its theme in the definitions:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Monograph \Mon"o*graph\, n. [Mono- + -graph.]
A written account or description of a single thing, or class
of things; a special treatise on a particular subject of
limited range.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
monograph
n : a detailed and documented treatise on a particular subject
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
[absolutely no Lisp content]
>>>>> "M" == Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
[...]
M> [First, I apologize for this long and off-topic post. People
M> who are interested in Lisp can safely ignore it.]
M> As for the schools (esp. the students), I agree.
Actually I think it is far more problemmatic for public (by which I
mean state administered) schools. It is not clear that the secular
state would be happy if women showed up for school bare-breasted for
religious reasons for example. Or to take it to the other extreme,
if students refused instruction by the opposite sex for religious
reasons. I suspect while the current problem with headscarves and
such can be conveniently labelled and dealt with as a 'religious
symbol' issue, it is far from clear how state institutions should deal
with unusual yet victimless behaviour that arises not from expression
of individual free thought but from conformity to an out-of-mainstream
culture. Having big religions in the picture just clouds the issue.
The politically expedient solutions asserting seemingly OK principles
might actually be harmful and admit clear-cut counterexamples (think
cults as one extreme for example).
And the problem does not stop with just public schools, if there are
laws requiring that kids attend school then the state will need to
legislate what is/isn't an acceptable school. Can kids go to cult
schools? If not, is the state in the business of dicerning
theological nuances between cult and religion? It does not stop at
'symbols' is my point, and just saying 'symbols are fine' evades the
larger issue.
M> But I think
M> it was a cultural advancement ultimately based on the ideas of
M> enlightenment not to "pollute" ones professional communication
M> (as a politician, as a software developer, as author, etc) with
M> religious or ideological views.
I think this case is far easier as there is no state coersion. Market
forces can take care of this to an extent. In clisp's case people are
getting upset about a symbol on a piece of software that comes
basically as a gift. I think that is misguided. Had they actually
had the software developed under contract they could have had a 'no
religious symbol' clause in the contract or they could have voted with
their wallet for pre-packaged for-money clisp. This is a non-problem,
or at least not a as hard a problem as the headscarf issue.
M> This has nothing to do with self-censorship. It has something
M> to do with respecting that others' beliefs are different.
M> There is no problem with a person wearing a religious or
M> political symbol on her clothes: There is someone expressing
M> her beliefs and if I have questions or concerns about it I can
M> go and ask.
Yes, and it seems clisp has a FAQ on this.
M> But if I advertise my beliefs in every text editor, every
M> compiler, every business letter, every political speech I write
M> people can not come to me immediately and ask me about it. It
M> might even be hard for them to avoid my propaganda. Maybe they
M> start advertising /their/ views in their professional
M> communication. [...]
At least as far as web/usenet/free software goes, they most certainly do.
For example, there are .sig's here that talk about class war, a gazillion
sites had/have various ribbon icons for various causes, sites get blacked
out in protest of proposed legislation etc. etc. It seems we differ on
where the professional line is.
cheers,
BM
[absolutely no Lisp content]
>>>>> "M" == Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
[...]
M> [First, I apologize for this long and off-topic post. People
M> who are interested in Lisp can safely ignore it.]
M> As for the schools (esp. the students), I agree.
Actually I think it is far more problematic for public (by which I
mean state administered) schools. It is not clear that the secular
state would be happy if women showed up for school bare-breasted for
religious reasons for example. Or to take it to the other extreme,
if students refused instruction by the opposite sex for religious
reasons. I suspect while the current problem with headscarves and
such can be conveniently labelled and dealt with as a 'religious
symbol' issue, it is far from clear how state institutions should deal
with unusual yet victimless behaviour that arises not from expression
of individual free thought but from conformity to an out-of-mainstream
culture. Having big religions in the picture just clouds the issue.
The politically expedient solutions asserting seemingly OK principles
might actually be harmful and admit clear-cut counterexamples (think
cults as one extreme for example).
And the problem does not stop with just public schools, if there are
laws requiring that kids attend school then the state will need to
legislate what is/isn't an acceptable school. Can kids go to cult
schools? If not, is the state in the business of discerning
theological nuances between cult and religion? It does not stop at
'symbols' is my point, and just saying 'symbols are fine' evades the
larger issue.
M> But I think
M> it was a cultural advancement ultimately based on the ideas of
M> enlightenment not to "pollute" ones professional communication
M> (as a politician, as a software developer, as author, etc) with
M> religious or ideological views.
I think this case is far easier as there is no state coercion. Market
forces can take care of this to an extent. In clisp's case people are
getting upset about a symbol on a piece of software that comes
basically as a gift. I think that is misguided. Had they actually
had the software developed under contract they could have had a 'no
religious symbol' clause in the contract or they could have voted with
their wallet for pre-packaged for-money clisp. This is a non-problem,
or at least not a as hard a problem as the headscarf issue.
M> This has nothing to do with self-censorship. It has something
M> to do with respecting that others' beliefs are different.
M> There is no problem with a person wearing a religious or
M> political symbol on her clothes: There is someone expressing
M> her beliefs and if I have questions or concerns about it I can
M> go and ask.
Yes, and it seems clisp has a FAQ on this.
M> But if I advertise my beliefs in every text editor, every
M> compiler, every business letter, every political speech I write
M> people can not come to me immediately and ask me about it. It
M> might even be hard for them to avoid my propaganda. Maybe they
M> start advertising /their/ views in their professional
M> communication. [...]
At least as far as web/usenet/free software goes, they most certainly do.
For example, there are .sigs here that talk about class war, a gazillion
sites had/have various ribbon icons for various causes, sites get blacked
out in protest of proposed legislation etc. etc. It seems we differ on
where the professional line is.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> Actually I think it is far more problematic for public (by which I
> mean state administered) schools. It is not clear that the secular
> state would be happy if women showed up for school bare-breasted for
> religious reasons for example.
I certainly wouldn't object. In fact, any reason whatsoever would be
ok by me.
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> I think this case is far easier as there is no state coercion. Market
> forces can take care of this to an extent. In clisp's case people are
> getting upset about a symbol on a piece of software that comes
> basically as a gift. I think that is misguided. Had they actually
> had the software developed under contract they could have had a 'no
> religious symbol' clause in the contract or they could have voted with
> their wallet for pre-packaged for-money clisp. This is a non-problem,
> or at least not a as hard a problem as the headscarf issue.
That is an idea: let the copyright owners of clisp distribute versions
with cressents, crosses, and other laic or religious symbols for a
fee, (in addition to the GPL'ed version).
You could even open a business of custom symbol CLISP, the customer
would provide an ascii art 20x12 that would be included as
banner. After all, there must be lisp programmers who can't write any
C code. That would make a market!
\`"-.
) _`-.
, : `. \
: _ ' \
; *` _. `--._
`-.-' `-.
| ` `.
:. . \
| \ . : .-' .
: )-.; ; / :
: ; | : : ;-.
; / : |`-: _ `- )
,-' / ,-' ; .-`- .' `--'
`--' `---' `---' bug
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
>>> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
>>>> schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
>>>> peculiarity.
>>>
>>> Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You might want
>>> to check it up: It's actually interesting.
>>
>> There's nothing particularly enlightened about banning
>> religious symbols in public schools, and there are plenty
>> of Europeans who realise this. (Me, for instance.)
>
> [First, I apologize for this long and off-topic post. People who are
> interested in Lisp can safely ignore it.]
I'm interested in Lisp, but I probably shouldn't ignore it as it's
a reply to something I wrote. I think you meant people who are *only*
interested in Lisp :-).
> As for the schools (esp. the students), I agree.
Oh, right. Then I must have completely mistaken the tone
of your original "The philosophy behind it is called ..."
comment, which I took to be implying that banning religious
symbols in public schools is simply an instance of
enlightenment, and that anyone who doesn't see this
is ignorant and needs to learn more :-).
> But I think it was
> a cultural advancement ultimately based on the ideas of enlightenment
> not to "pollute" ones professional communication (as a politician, as
> a software developer, as author, etc) with religious or ideological
> views.
Well, I believe that one's professional communication should
generally be kept free of irrelevancies, and that politics
and religion are usually (from the professional standpoint)
irrelevancies. But I still don't think religious symbols
should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
one) on people. Banning them is just about exactly as good
or as bad as enforcing them.
It's not clear to me, incidentally, that religion is irrelevant
to politics in anything like the same way as it is irrelevant
to software development. In a representative democracy, voters
are (in principle) voting for the *candidate* as well as the
party; so anything that has a profound effect on how the candidate
thinks and acts is somewhat relevant.
> But if I advertise my beliefs in every text editor, every compiler,
> every business letter, every political speech I write people can not
> come to me immediately and ask me about it. It might even be hard for
> them to avoid my propaganda. Maybe they start advertising /their/
> views in their professional communication.
I broadly agree, but this seems overstated to me.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> I still don't think religious symbols
> should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
> fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
> particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
> one) on people. Banning them is just about exactly as good
> or as bad as enforcing them.
Schools are run by the state, and the state should in general represent
itself neutral wrt religious issues, IHMO. I guess the only two ways to
go in principle are either allow all kinds of religious symbols, or else
disallow any. Of course, this should include atheist symbols as well.
Of course, these are superficial issues. The important thing is how the
people involved behave towards other people, not what symbols they carry
around.
And this is a reasoning that should also be taken into account wrt to
religious symbols displayed in the context of software. The fact that
CLISP displays a Jewish symbol doesn't tell me anything at all about
whether its authors are tolerant or not. Vice versa, if you think that
it definitely indicates intolerant behavior, then you're pretty much
intolerant yourself, I guess.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> > I still don't think religious symbols
> > should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
> > fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
> > particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
> > one) on people. Banning them is just about exactly as good
> > or as bad as enforcing them.
>
> Schools are run by the state, and the state should in general
> represent itself neutral wrt religious issues, IHMO. I guess the only
> two ways to go in principle are either allow all kinds of religious
> symbols, or else disallow any. Of course, this should include atheist
> symbols as well.
Right. There might be other compromises that make sense in
practice; for instance, maybe some religious or anti-religious
symbols are offensive to some people, and ones that (e.g.) are
offensive to many more people than they are helpful for *might*
properly be discouraged or even forbidden. I can't see how a
headscarf could come into that category.
> Of course, these are superficial issues. The important thing is how
> the people involved behave towards other people, not what symbols they
> carry around.
Right. But the symbols are important to some people, which is
why it's not in general reasonable to forbid them.
> And this is a reasoning that should also be taken into account wrt to
> religious symbols displayed in the context of software. The fact that
> CLISP displays a Jewish symbol doesn't tell me anything at all about
> whether its authors are tolerant or not. Vice versa, if you think that
> it definitely indicates intolerant behavior, then you're pretty much
> intolerant yourself, I guess.
I am inclined to agree. And, as someone mentioned, the menorah
is *not* in fact a religious symbol but a cultural one. It's
not so much as if a program written by Christians displayed
a cross, or one written by Buddhists a prayer wheel; but as if
a program written by English people displayed a nice hot cup
of tea, or one written by Canadians displayed a maple leaf.
Like, er, the symbolic mathematics package called Maple; I
don't recall ever hearing anyone object to *that*. So why
should a Jewish cultural symbol be less acceptable than a
Canadian one, eh? :-|
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>>Schools are run by the state, and the state should in general
>>represent itself neutral wrt religious issues, IHMO. I guess the only
>>two ways to go in principle are either allow all kinds of religious
>>symbols, or else disallow any. Of course, this should include atheist
>>symbols as well.
>
>
> Right. There might be other compromises that make sense in
> practice; for instance, maybe some religious or anti-religious
> symbols are offensive to some people, and ones that (e.g.) are
> offensive to many more people than they are helpful for *might*
> properly be discouraged or even forbidden. I can't see how a
> headscarf could come into that category.
It seems to me that headscarves are foremostly not symbols, but rather
acts of discrimination against women. But that's just my personal opinion.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
>>>>> "PC" == Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
[...]
PC> It seems to me that headscarves are foremostly not symbols,
PC> but rather acts of discrimination against women. But that's
PC> just my personal opinion. [...]
They are not 'act's of discrimination, unless you are willing to
assume self discrimination is a meaningful way to talk about it. That
particular strain of faith dictates (BTW w/o clear guidance from
scriptures AFAIK) that it is sinful for women to display their hair in
mixed company of strangers. So yes, the headscarf is more than a
symbol. Those women are just complying with what they believe to be a
rule from up above that only applies to women. That's why I brought
up the breast example. (ie men can go around 'topless' w/o legal
consequences whereas, at least in the US, women can't). The main
question, I think, is what kind of out-of-mainstream but victimless
behaviour can be tolerated by the state in free societies. All this
is muddied by covert militancy, family pressure, xenophobia, hypocrisy
and lack of backbone in all sides but that's nothing new of course.
Now the real fun begins when you observe that out-of-mainstream but
victimless behaviour might well be _not_ wearing a headscarf in
predominantly Muslim societies.
cheers,
BM
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> > And this is a reasoning that should also be taken into account wrt to
> > religious symbols displayed in the context of software. The fact that
> > CLISP displays a Jewish symbol doesn't tell me anything at all about
> > whether its authors are tolerant or not. Vice versa, if you think that
> > it definitely indicates intolerant behavior, then you're pretty much
> > intolerant yourself, I guess.
>
> I am inclined to agree. And, as someone mentioned, the menorah
> is *not* in fact a religious symbol but a cultural one. It's
> not so much as if a program written by Christians displayed
> a cross, or one written by Buddhists a prayer wheel; but as if
> a program written by English people displayed a nice hot cup
> of tea, or one written by Canadians displayed a maple leaf.
> Like, er, the symbolic mathematics package called Maple; I
> don't recall ever hearing anyone object to *that*. So why
> should a Jewish cultural symbol be less acceptable than a
> Canadian one, eh? :-|
I don't think people in general are aware that the menorah is "just" a
cultural symbol. And if most people associate it with the religion, it
*is* a religious symbol to them. So I am not sure that your comparison
to a maple leaf is very accurate.
Bj�rn
·······@nada.kth.se (Bj�rn Lindberg) writes:
> I don't think people in general are aware that the menorah is "just" a
> cultural symbol. And if most people associate it with the religion, it
> *is* a religious symbol to them. So I am not sure that your comparison
> to a maple leaf is very accurate.
In any case, I really really wonder why people have something against
the menorah appearing in the CLisp startup banner.
What's the problem? Is it radioactive or what?
Begin of a quotation from a message written by an mere-mortal named:
Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com>:
> ·······@nada.kth.se (Bj�rn Lindberg) writes:
> > I don't think people in general are aware that the menorah is "just" a
> > cultural symbol. And if most people associate it with the religion, it
> > *is* a religious symbol to them. So I am not sure that your comparison
> > to a maple leaf is very accurate.
>
> In any case, I really really wonder why people have something against
> the menorah appearing in the CLisp startup banner.
>
> What's the problem? Is it radioactive or what?
Not much , but some narrow minded people object to a picture of
(defun dinnertable-athmosphere-enhancing-object ())
Well, have I news for them: clisp is open-source-code you know.
If you dislike whatever is in it , get the source and axe anything
you do not like out of it and replace it with any dirty or nice picture
of a neighbour, your SO (M/F), your cat or someone you _do_ love,
recompile the bugger and be a happy traveller ever after.
For the source-hacking-challenged: alias clisp='clisp -q' will also do
the job in the utmost nicest possible of ways.
(yes, I obviously did read the manual ... )
cor
--
If you are quickly offended , STOP reading offensive messages , Like ABOVE.
The Worlds best understood IM-appliance...........Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47
NO !! I Will NOT Fix Your Computer http://www.geekgrrrl.nl
Bj�rn Lindberg wrote:
[I said:]
>> I am inclined to agree. And, as someone mentioned, the menorah
>> is *not* in fact a religious symbol but a cultural one. It's
>> not so much as if a program written by Christians displayed
>> a cross, or one written by Buddhists a prayer wheel; but as if
>> a program written by English people displayed a nice hot cup
>> of tea, or one written by Canadians displayed a maple leaf.
>> Like, er, the symbolic mathematics package called Maple; I
>> don't recall ever hearing anyone object to *that*. So why
>> should a Jewish cultural symbol be less acceptable than a
>> Canadian one, eh? :-|
>
> I don't think people in general are aware that the menorah is "just" a
> cultural symbol. And if most people associate it with the religion, it
> *is* a religious symbol to them. So I am not sure that your comparison
> to a maple leaf is very accurate.
If it's not used as a religious symbol by the people who use it
as a symbol, then it is not a religious symbol. The fact that
some ill-informed people wrongly think of it as one is neither
here nor there. There would be nothing wrong with Maple using
a maple leaf in its logo even if there were a lot of people
who wrongly thought the maple leaf was used as a symbol by
some weird Canadian religious cult. (I suppose it might be
a foolish move, since it might reduce sales or something, but
it certainly wouldn't become a piece of religious propaganda
just because some people wrongly think of the symbol as
religious.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:05:00 +0100, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> I still don't think religious symbols
>> should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
>> fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
>> particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
>> one) on people. Banning them is just about exactly as good
>> or as bad as enforcing them.
> Schools are run by the state, and the state should in general
> represent itself neutral wrt religious issues, IHMO. I guess the only
> two ways to go in principle are either allow all kinds of religious
> symbols, or else disallow any. Of course, this should include atheist
> symbols as well.
There's another, and much better, solution: get the "state" out of the
business of running schools.
--
Democracy is the view that the public know what they want, and deserve to
get it good and hard. -- H. L. Mencken
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote in message news:<··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>...
> There's another, and much better, solution: get the "state" out of the
> business of running schools.
Although I agree that the "state" shouldn't be doing the actual
administration, because of its tendencies toward inefficiency and
bureaucratic bloat, the "state" does have two important roles IMHO.
1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded by
inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
2. The establishment of standards, else total local autonomy will lead
to such intellectual biases as creationism being taught as a science
(it is not).
·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) writes:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote in message
news:<··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>...
> > There's another, and much better, solution: get the "state" out of the
> > business of running schools.
>
> Although I agree that the "state" shouldn't be doing the actual
> administration, because of its tendencies toward inefficiency and
> bureaucratic bloat, the "state" does have two important roles IMHO.
>
> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded by
> inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
If the state runs the administration, it often does it inefficiently,
I agree. If it deals with private companies, it tends to make very bad
deals for the taxpayer and the public (witness the German highway toll
disaster). The cause seems to be corruption.
I think it is a good thing when the state provides an education system
essentially for free. If it is not of good quality, it should be
improved. IMO it should not be privatized.
> 2. The establishment of standards, else total local autonomy will lead
> to such intellectual biases as creationism being taught as a science
> (it is not).
I agree. It is really bad to have a majority of people believing this
or worse crap.
>>>>> "MSM" == Mario S Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
MSM> ·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) writes:
[...]
>> 2. The establishment of standards, else total local autonomy
>> will lead to such intellectual biases as creationism being
>> taught as a science (it is not).
MSM> I agree. It is really bad to have a majority of people
MSM> believing this or worse crap. [...]
On the other hand, if the majority of the people _do_ believe it,
letting the state dictate curricula _will_, in a democracy, lead to
kids being taught that 'crap.' This happens today actually with
'official history.' The implicit assumption in RC's point is that
large enough crowds are somehow saner or more benign than small ones.
I see no reason to believe that. (Of course it can also be argued that
if the majority or a large enough minority goes completely insane, all
bets are off anyway.) All OT, all IMHO.
cheers,
BM
In article <··············@cubx.internal>,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
> The implicit assumption in RC's point is that
> large enough crowds are somehow saner or more benign than small ones.
> I see no reason to believe that.
Neither do I, but that is not the implicit assumption. The alternative,
assumption, and one that comports with real world experience, is that
when policy is set at a national level, it is more likely to be
influenced heavily by the most competent people in the relevant field,
because the larger pool upon which we draw is more likely to contain
real experts, as well as loonies with an axe to grind. Policy makers can
see the difference between the two, and they give much greater weight to
the real experts.
If policy is set at the local level, it is more likely to be influenced
heavily by stong local biases, because local school boards might not
have any world renouned evolutionary biologists serving on them, but
they're quite likely to have a handfull of creationist ignoramuses. This
is why creationism is essentially invisible at the level of say, the
NSF, while it is pushed quite heavily by many local school boards in
certain parts of the US.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <u133cpan.fsf@comcast.net>
·······@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) writes:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote in message news:<··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>...
>> There's another, and much better, solution: get the "state" out of the
>> business of running schools.
>
> Although I agree that the "state" shouldn't be doing the actual
> administration, because of its tendencies toward inefficiency and
> bureaucratic bloat, the "state" does have two important roles IMHO.
>
> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded by
> inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
Taxes already fund education, yet schools in wealthy neighborhoods
perform better than schools in poor neighborhoods.
> 2. The establishment of standards, else total local autonomy will lead
> to such intellectual biases as creationism being taught as a science
> (it is not).
The Kansas Board of Education was a state-wide body, not local.
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
[Raffael Cavallaro:]
>> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
>> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded
>> by inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
[Joe:]
> Taxes already fund education, yet schools in wealthy neighborhoods
> perform better than schools in poor neighborhoods.
I'm feeling dim; isn't that a non-sequitur? Raffael didn't
claim that state education eliminates all educational
differences.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <hdz3ckvn.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
> [Raffael Cavallaro:]
>>> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
>>> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded
>>> by inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
>
> [Joe:]
>> Taxes already fund education, yet schools in wealthy neighborhoods
>> perform better than schools in poor neighborhoods.
>
> I'm feeling dim; isn't that a non-sequitur? Raffael didn't
> claim that state education eliminates all educational
> differences.
Raffael was implying that funding of education through tax revenues
was necessary to supply schools to those that are not relatively
wealthy. I admit that I assumed that the purpose of these schools is
education rather than simply keeping custody of children during
daytime hours. In other words, it isn't the physical building that is
of importance, but rather the education. In this case, Raffael is
implying that tax revenues are a prerequisite for educating those that
are not relatively wealthy.
I was pointing out that tax revenues do not seem to have much effect
on education, even when those revenues are spent on education.
First, Raffael should make a persuasive case that state-sponsored
schools are an effective means of educating the populace. *Then* we
can argue about whether they are a reasonable means. Finally, we
could argue about how to pay for them, assuming we get that far.
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
>> [Raffael Cavallaro:]
>>>> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
>>>> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded
>>>> by inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
>>
>> [Joe:]
>>> Taxes already fund education, yet schools in wealthy neighborhoods
>>> perform better than schools in poor neighborhoods.
>>
>> I'm feeling dim; isn't that a non-sequitur? Raffael didn't
>> claim that state education eliminates all educational
>> differences.
>
> Raffael was implying that funding of education through tax revenues
> was necessary to supply schools to those that are not relatively
> wealthy. I admit that I assumed that the purpose of these schools is
> education rather than simply keeping custody of children during
> daytime hours. In other words, it isn't the physical building that is
> of importance, but rather the education. In this case, Raffael is
> implying that tax revenues are a prerequisite for educating those that
> are not relatively wealthy.
Right: that's how I understood him too.
> I was pointing out that tax revenues do not seem to have much effect
> on education, even when those revenues are spent on education.
I'm feeling dim again. It looked to me like what you said was
not that they don't have much effect, but only that they don't
have enough effect to make up for whatever other factors are
at work.
> First, Raffael should make a persuasive case that state-sponsored
> schools are an effective means of educating the populace. *Then* we
> can argue about whether they are a reasonable means. Finally, we
> could argue about how to pay for them, assuming we get that far.
No. First, you should make a persuasive case that Raffael needs
to make a persuasive case that state-sponsored schools are an
effective means of educating the populace. Why should schools
become ineffective merely because the state is paying for them?
(If what you're claiming is only that state-sponsored schools
don't do a perfect job, or don't do as good a job as private
schools could if the same pupils were sent to them, or something,
then doubtless you're right, but I don't see the relevance.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <1xq6cmji.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>> I was pointing out that tax revenues do not seem to have much effect
>> on education, even when those revenues are spent on education.
>
> I'm feeling dim again. It looked to me like what you said was
> not that they don't have much effect, but only that they don't
> have enough effect to make up for whatever other factors are
> at work.
Let me put it this way. I see no evidence that increased tax revenues
lead to better education.
>> First, Raffael should make a persuasive case that state-sponsored
>> schools are an effective means of educating the populace. *Then* we
>> can argue about whether they are a reasonable means. Finally, we
>> could argue about how to pay for them, assuming we get that far.
>
> No. First, you should make a persuasive case that Raffael needs
> to make a persuasive case that state-sponsored schools are an
> effective means of educating the populace. Why should schools
> become ineffective merely because the state is paying for them?
Are schools effective?
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
>>> I was pointing out that tax revenues do not seem to have much effect
>>> on education, even when those revenues are spent on education.
>>
>> I'm feeling dim again. It looked to me like what you said was
>> not that they don't have much effect, but only that they don't
>> have enough effect to make up for whatever other factors are
>> at work.
>
> Let me put it this way. I see no evidence that increased tax revenues
> lead to better education.
This again seems not to be an answer to the point actually
at issue. The difference between a situation where the state
funds some schools and one where the state doesn't is not
one of revenue, but one of spending. What evidence have you
looked at that would indicate whether or not the difference
between the state spending nothing on education and the state
spending however much typical present-day states do on
education leads to better education?
>>> First, Raffael should make a persuasive case that state-sponsored
>>> schools are an effective means of educating the populace. *Then* we
>>> can argue about whether they are a reasonable means. Finally, we
>>> could argue about how to pay for them, assuming we get that far.
>>
>> No. First, you should make a persuasive case that Raffael needs
>> to make a persuasive case that state-sponsored schools are an
>> effective means of educating the populace. Why should schools
>> become ineffective merely because the state is paying for them?
>
> Are schools effective?
They certainly do something. (More than, e.g., just keeping
children out of their parents' way.) They certainly aren't
perfect, whatever "perfect" might mean in this context. If
you think they do no good at all, then perhaps you'd like to
explain why.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <eku6b08f.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>>
>> Are schools effective?
>
> They certainly do something. (More than, e.g., just keeping
> children out of their parents' way.) They certainly aren't
> perfect, whatever "perfect" might mean in this context. If
> you think they do no good at all, then perhaps you'd like to
> explain why.
I am deeply skeptical about about the benefits of government-sponsored
mass schooling. Of course this will make me appear as a loonie, but
what else is new.
Government-sponsored mass schooling is a relatively new phenomenon.
It was introduced in Europe in the 1800s. There appears to be no
dearth of intelligent people prior to that time, nor a staggering
increase since then.
The US spends a huge amount per pupil on government-sponsored schools
(behind Austria and Switzerland), yet is generally known to be
sub-par.
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:
>>> Are schools effective?
>>
>> They certainly do something. (More than, e.g., just keeping
>> children out of their parents' way.) They certainly aren't
>> perfect, whatever "perfect" might mean in this context. If
>> you think they do no good at all, then perhaps you'd like to
>> explain why.
>
> I am deeply skeptical about about the benefits of government-sponsored
> mass schooling. Of course this will make me appear as a loonie, but
> what else is new.
You're welcome to be skeptical. I was hoping for some reasons,
that's all :-). (And no, I don't think you're a loony.)
> Government-sponsored mass schooling is a relatively new phenomenon.
> It was introduced in Europe in the 1800s. There appears to be no
> dearth of intelligent people prior to that time, nor a staggering
> increase since then.
It's very unclear to me how we could tell; there are
too many other complicating factors.
One of the things government-sponsored mass schooling
was supposed to achieve was the extension of education
to those who aren't wealthy. It would be interesting
to look at the distribution, among "intelligent people",
of rich and poor, before and after the introduction of
state schooling.
> The US spends a huge amount per pupil on government-sponsored schools
> (behind Austria and Switzerland), yet is generally known to be
> sub-par.
You mean the US's state education is worse than other
countries' state education? That may very well be true,
but doesn't have any bearing on the question whether
state-funded education is a good thing.
If, on the other hand, you mean that US education
as a whole is worse than other countries', then you
might be right but that again doesn't have any
bearing on the question unless the other countries
in question don't have state-funded schools.
The US is also phenomenally successful in most of
what appear to be its national goals -- being the
biggest power in trade, war and technology. It looks
as if the US school system does what's being asked
of it.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
>>>>> "GMcC" == Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
[sorry Kenny, I'd have shut up but badmouthing CLIM here on mere _hearsay_
is at least as bad as being OT]
[...]
GMcC> The US is also phenomenally successful in most of what
GMcC> appear to be its national goals -- being the biggest power
GMcC> in trade, war and technology. It looks as if the US school
GMcC> system does what's being asked of it. [...]
Hmm. Might the success have come about _despite_ the school system?
Look, the US, for the most part, is as advertised: one of the freest
industrialized societies on earth. The success, such as it is, might
have been caused by that rather than public education. I dunno,
education is a strange thing. Societies certainly talk about it a lot
but even in the teaching of relatively uncontroversial things (arithmetic,
the ability to read and understand a short passage etc.) it doesn't seem
like we made a whole lot of progress since I was in school. One might
imagine if there were more competitive pressure, new techniques would
have emerged.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>>"GMcC" == Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>
> [sorry Kenny, I'd have shut up but badmouthing CLIM here on mere _hearsay_
> is at least as bad as being OT]
This is funny, I read one message just because the headscarves to lisp
ratio continues above 75%, and I find my name in lights! <g>
So you call respecting the opinions of respected Lispniks "mere
_hearsay_"? Nice spin! :)
Note that the hearsay was backed up by multiple other data points, such
as the pathetic address book demo offered as a shining example of what
CLIM could do. That alone was an extremely bad sign for CLIM.
My web site has samples from Cello precursors that show what GUIs should
look like, and those were just actual working screens never meant to
serve as poster boys for the project.
Anyway, I apologize for interfering with everyone's best efforts to make
c.l.l. look like a home for loonies. Now about those headscarves...
kt
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> So you call respecting the opinions of respected Lispniks "mere
> _hearsay_"? Nice spin! :)
Respect does not imply infallibility, and should not be used as a
substitute for thinking.
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
>>>>> "KT" == Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
[sprinkle with smileys to taste]
KT> This is funny, I read one message just because the headscarves
KT> to lisp ratio continues above 75%, and I find my name in
KT> lights! <g>
Of course, you re always on cller's minds!
KT> So you call respecting the opinions of respected Lispniks
KT> "mere _hearsay_"? Nice spin! :)
It seems I wasn't able to bait any of the OT folks into polemic, so I
had to fall back to you! What a nice sport you are, thanks.
KT> Note that the hearsay was backed up by multiple other data
KT> points, such as the pathetic address book demo offered as a
KT> shining example of what CLIM could do. That alone was an
KT> extremely bad sign for CLIM. [...]
I think what you want is links like the following:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=n_Kja.381026%24sf5.705594%40rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net
Just for the record, I did use CLIM at some point. It was not terribly
hard to pick up, and I suspect I could do stuff with it without really
getting it. No better than the address book demo maybe but here's the
only evidence of my use I can dig up right now from my Common Lisp
Inference Toy (Motif/SunOS):
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/mucit/res/clit.gif
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
[I wrote:]
> GMcC> The US is also phenomenally successful in most of what
> GMcC> appear to be its national goals -- being the biggest power
> GMcC> in trade, war and technology. It looks as if the US school
> GMcC> system does what's being asked of it. [...]
>
> Hmm. Might the success have come about _despite_ the school system?
Of course. I'm saying only this: one way to judge a national
education system is to look at how well the nation whose
system it is does at what it aims to do. There are any number
of other complicating factors, so there's more noise than
signal there, but it seems to be about the best one can do.
> Look, the US, for the most part, is as advertised: one of the freest
> industrialized societies on earth. The success, such as it is, might
> have been caused by that rather than public education. I dunno,
> education is a strange thing. Societies certainly talk about it a lot
> but even in the teaching of relatively uncontroversial things (arithmetic,
> the ability to read and understand a short passage etc.) it doesn't seem
> like we made a whole lot of progress since I was in school. One might
> imagine if there were more competitive pressure, new techniques would
> have emerged.
The quality of a method of education, or of a particular
educator or educational establishment, cannot easily be
measured without a long delay. (You can measure, e.g.,
how well it prepares someone for a particular set of
examinations, but I don't think that's terribly interesting.)
That is not the most promising environment for letting the
market sort things out.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
In article <············@comcast.net>,
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>> Are schools effective?
>>
>> They certainly do something. (More than, e.g., just keeping
>> children out of their parents' way.) They certainly aren't
>> perfect, whatever "perfect" might mean in this context. If
>> you think they do no good at all, then perhaps you'd like to
>> explain why.
>
>I am deeply skeptical about about the benefits of government-sponsored
>mass schooling. Of course this will make me appear as a loonie, but
>what else is new.
>
>Government-sponsored mass schooling is a relatively new phenomenon.
>It was introduced in Europe in the 1800s. There appears to be no
>dearth of intelligent people prior to that time, nor a staggering
>increase since then.
May be -- but what about % literacy -- went *way* up with
public education, I *believe* I saw somewhere (reputable?).
>The US spends a huge amount per pupil on government-sponsored schools
>(behind Austria and Switzerland), yet is generally known to be
>sub-par.
Well, we do have this huge number of discriminated-against
people -- until 50 years ago it was state-supported,mandated,enforced
discrimination, and to some observers it seems to if not heading
back into that extreme, at least undoing a lot of the laslt
30 or so years of lightening-up of that pretty-brutal discrimation.
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called something
like "anti-soviet activities"; do we have such a term?))
Recall that back in the slave-days, it was flat *illegal*
to teach a slave to read or write.
If you want to take over a government, turn it into
an dictatorship, and have the people not complain
too much, you probably don't want them to be very
educated, able to research things, ... You'd like
to *destroy* public education, maybe.
Getting too late again! 2:24! a.m.!
roger, over, and out.
David
From: David Combs
Subject: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <c0258s$lm$1@reader2.panix.com>
Geez, I have no idea what happened -- I guess my fingers
slipped -- no, my entire hand!
I'll try fixing it a bit. (What vi gives, it can also
take back.)
In article <············@comcast.net>,
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>> Are schools effective?
>>
>> They certainly do something. (More than, e.g., just keeping
>> children out of their parents' way.) They certainly aren't
>> perfect, whatever "perfect" might mean in this context. If
>> you think they do no good at all, then perhaps you'd like to
>> explain why.
>
>I am deeply skeptical about about the benefits of government-sponsored
>mass schooling. Of course this will make me appear as a loonie, but
>what else is new.
>
>Government-sponsored mass schooling is a relatively new phenomenon.
>It was introduced in Europe in the 1800s. There appears to be no
>dearth of intelligent people prior to that time, nor a staggering
>increase since then.
May be -- but what about % literacy -- went *way* up with
public education, I *believe* I saw somewhere (reputable?).
>The US spends a huge amount per pupil on government-sponsored schools
>(behind Austria and Switzerland), yet is generally known to be
>sub-par.
Well, we do have this huge number of discriminated-against
people -- until 50 years ago it was state-supported,mandated,enforced
discrimination, and to some observers it seems to if not heading
back into that extreme, at least undoing a lot of the laslt
30 or so years of lightening-up of that pretty-brutal discrimation.
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Anti-Soviet Activity
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
I suppose that with all this exporting of jobs to overseas,
I suppose there are those who say "who needs an educated
work-force any more? Just send the jobs overseas".
(It would take an entire separate discussion to get into
the pros and cons of these job-exports. I can imagine
that some political systems would regard it as
akin to treason (I know that treason is not the right
word, but what word is there in English for it? The
USSR defined as a crime something they called
Plus, I assume you've noticed a lot of defunding of the nation's
state colleges and universities, such that students are having
to drop out because they can't pay the *rapidly* increasing
tuitions.
Recall that back in the slave-days, it was flat *illegal*
to teach a slave to read or write.
If you want to take over a government, turn it into
an dictatorship, and have the people not complain
too much, you probably don't want them to be very
educated, able to research things, ... You'd like
to *destroy* public education, maybe.
Getting too late again! 2:24! a.m.!
roger, over, and out.
David
On 2004-02-07 05:55:43 -0500, Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> said:
> And who made it illegal? Wouldn't be that very same government
> you're
> now saying should be heavily involved in education, would it?? Nah
> :-)
No, it wouldn't be the "very same government." That government was
elected by white males *only*. The government we have now is elected by
african americans, and women, and asian americans, etc., as well as
white males. Moreover, the Constitution has been amended since then to
prevent such racist laws from being passed.
So, no, it isn't the "very same government."
I've seen the bending of historical truth for rhetorical purposes
before, but you simply ignore the facts altogether.
raf
From: Nils Gösche
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <87ekt6lci1.fsf@darkstar.cartan.de>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-07 05:55:43 -0500, Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> said:
>
> > And who made it illegal? Wouldn't be that very same government
> > you're now saying should be heavily involved in education, would
> > it?? Nah :-)
>
> No, it wouldn't be the "very same government." That government was
> elected by white males *only*. The government we have now is elected
> by african americans, and women, and asian americans, etc., as well
> as white males. Moreover, the Constitution has been amended since
> then to prevent such racist laws from being passed.
And what was the outcome? George W. Bush. Finally, I am beginning to
understand why the American leftists are so eager to reintroduce
racist laws in the US.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID #xEEFBA4AF
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan.de>,
···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) wrote:
> And what was the outcome? George W. Bush. Finally, I am beginning to
> understand why the American leftists are so eager to reintroduce
> racist laws in the US.
The outcome was that Bush was *not* elected. Apart from losing the
popular vote, he had the election handed to him by a right wing Supreme
Court, which ignored the fact that the contested State, Florida, was
run, or rather, mismanaged, by the brother of one of the candidates[1].
The 2000 presidential election shows exactly the same thing that the
aforementioned racist laws show; when you prevent everyone from having a
say in the electoral process, you get a bad government as a result.
raf
[1] The State of Florida, under Jeb Bush, George's brother, illegally
disqualified thousands of voters, mostly african americans,
statistically much more likely to vote for Gore, for comitting felonies
*in the future*!!! That's right - thousands of voters were removed from
the voter rolls for having felony convictions *after* the year 2000.
Needless to say this was just a "mistake," but one that conveniently
prevented predominantly Gore supporters from voting. Tens of thousands
of african americans were prevented from voting by this and other means.
This pattern of voter disqualifications was not a coincidence.
See _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons,
Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters_
by Greg Palast
From: Nils Gösche
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <87ad3ulayx.fsf@darkstar.cartan.de>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan.de>,
> ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) wrote:
>
> > And what was the outcome? George W. Bush. Finally, I am
> > beginning to understand why the American leftists are so eager to
> > reintroduce racist laws in the US.
>
> The outcome was that Bush was *not* elected. Apart from losing the
> popular vote, he had the election handed to him by a right wing
> Supreme Court, which ignored the fact that the contested State,
> Florida, was run, or rather, mismanaged, by the brother of one of
> the candidates[1].
Yeah, right. You forgot to mention the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID #xEEFBA4AF
On 2004-02-07 18:35:18 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
>
> Yeah, right. You forgot to mention the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
George Bush, his *brother* Jeb. This is not vast. It is ordinary
political corruption. No need for conspiracy theories, or tinfoil hats
here.
Try reading the evidence first, then spout dismissive comments. If you
haven't read the evidence though, your dismissive comments are just
denial.
raf
From: Nils Gösche
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <874qu2l9va.fsf@darkstar.cartan.de>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-07 18:35:18 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
> > Yeah, right. You forgot to mention the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
>
> George Bush, his *brother* Jeb. This is not vast. It is ordinary
> political corruption. No need for conspiracy theories, or tinfoil hats
> here.
>
> Try reading the evidence first, then spout dismissive comments. If you
> haven't read the evidence though, your dismissive comments are just
> denial.
An exhaustive treatment can be found in Ann Coulter's �Slander�.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID #xEEFBA4AF
On 2004-02-07 18:59:05 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
> An exhaustive treatment can be found in Ann Coulter's �Slander�.
I wrote "evidence," not the interpretations of a well known political
hack. Ann Coulter is notorious for ignoring the evidence and writing
whatever she pleases, as was well documented by Al Franken in his very
amusing book _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and
Balanced Look at the Right_.
From: Nils Gösche
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <87znbujuhf.fsf@darkstar.cartan.de>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-07 18:59:05 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
>
> > An exhaustive treatment can be found in Ann Coulter's �Slander�.
>
> I wrote "evidence," not the interpretations of a well known
> political hack. Ann Coulter is notorious for ignoring the evidence
> and writing whatever she pleases, as was well documented by Al
> Franken in his very amusing book _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell
> Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right_.
Many people say the same thing about Al Franken. I don't think this
is getting anywhere.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID #xEEFBA4AF
On 2004-02-07 19:16:44 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
> Many people say the same thing about Al Franken. I don't think this
> is getting anywhere.
"Many people say" and "well documented" are two different animals.
Franken's research team has thoroughly researched and documented
Coulter's lies and half truths. Coulter has not even attempted to
return the favor, because she can't - Franken's assertions are backed
up by thousands of man hours of research, and accompanied by proper
citations of sources. Coulter's assertions are backed up by incorrect
and misleading footnotes, and are often outright lies.
Again, please read the evidence[1], not Ann Coulter's highly biased,
poorly documented, and often outright false screed. The evidence points
not to any grand conspiracy, but to simple political corruption of the
most venal kind - a Governor using his influence to bias election
results in his State in favor of his own brother.
The fact that the contested State is governed by the brother of one of
the candidates should have set off alarm bells for any right thinking
court of law. The US Supreme Court majority was happy to let the clock
run out however, because doing so yielded a result in agreement with
their conservative Republican political affiliations.
As one summary put it, (I'm paraphrasing here), imagine a national
election which is decided by a margin of, at most, a few thousand votes
in one province. That province is governed by the brother of one of the
candidates. In that province, tens of thousands of members of an ethnic
minority, who overwhelmingly favor the other candidate, are illegally
prevented from voting at all. If this happened in Africa, Asia, Europe,
or Latin America, everyone in the US would quite correctly characterize
the results as election fraud. But because it happened in the USA, it
must have been a fair election, because election fraud can't happen in
the US - "Election fraud? that only happens in other countries, right?"
Wrong. And now the whole world is suffering the consequences of that
electoral fraud.
[1] Greg Palast's book is really an excellent starting point,
especially for US readers, since most of the relevant facts were not
published by the mainstream news media at the time. A quick answer to
the obvious question "why not?" - Two words: denial, and "access."
Denial: US reporters are, for the most part, just as vulnerable to the
naive US bias that "election fraud can't happen here." They largely
dismissed the possibility that it had occurred, even when faced with
substantial evidence indicating just that.
Access: Reporters who cover a statehouse beat, or a White House beat,
need officials in state government or the White House to return their
calls, give comments, etc. This is known in journalism as "access." To
be denied access as a reporter is to be out of a job. To publish a
story that raises the serious possibility that the sitting Governor has
committed election fraud guarantees that the reporter filing the story
will never have "access" again. Probable loss of employment is a strong
disincentive to file a controversial story.
From: Nils Gösche
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <87oesajmog.fsf@darkstar.cartan.de>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-07 19:16:44 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
>
> > Many people say the same thing about Al Franken. I don't think this
> > is getting anywhere.
>
> "Many people say" and "well documented" are two different
> animals. Franken's research team has thoroughly researched and
> documented Coulter's lies and half truths. Coulter has not even
> attempted to return the favor, because she can't - Franken's
> assertions are backed up by thousands of man hours of research, and
> accompanied by proper citations of sources. Coulter's assertions are
> backed up by incorrect and misleading footnotes, and are often
> outright lies.
Yeah, suuure. Did you check it? Do you even own Slander?
> Again, please read the evidence[1], not Ann Coulter's highly biased,
> poorly documented, and often outright false screed.
It is very well documented. Did you even read it?
> The evidence points not to any grand conspiracy,
It doesn't? Just a few posts ago, you were counting the Supreme Court
[!!] in on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. (And note that the
governor of the state of Miami has absolutely no say in the whole
matter). You, Sir, are a psychotic leftist lunatic. The treatment of
psychotic lunatics requires an enormous amount of care, attention and
energy, and is, for this reason, highly expensive. I am not going to
provide this service for free. If your legal guardian is willing to
make me an acceptable offer, though, he should give me a call.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID #xEEFBA4AF
On 2004-02-07 22:05:19 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
> Yeah, suuure. Did you check it? Do you even own Slander?
Yes, I have read Ann Coulter's _Slander_.
>
> > Again, please read the evidence[1], not Ann Coulter's highly
> > biased,
> > poorly documented, and often outright false screed.
>
> It is very well documented.
No, it is *not* well documented. It contains many footnotes, but many
of these are intentionally deceptive, or just plain *false*. Again, the
precise and detailed expos� of Ann Coulter's deceptions and outright
lies are laid out, with *proper* citations, and verifiable research, in
Al Franken's book.
>
> > The evidence points not to any grand conspiracy,
>
> It doesn't? Just a few posts ago, you were counting the Supreme
> Court
> [!!] in on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
No. The Supreme Court majority only had to act in accord with their
political affiliations. This is not "conspiracy." Conspiracy implies
that the various parties have communicated with each other and devised
some plan before hand. In this case, we simply have electoral fraud in
Jeb Bush's Florida Republican administration, and the US Supreme Court
majority voting for a result that favored its political party's
interests. No communication necessary, no grand plan, just a handful of
corrupt individuals acting independently, each in his own political
interest. Note that that even on the US Supreme Court, three Justices,
Stevens, Gisnburg, and Breyer, dissented from the majority. Finally,
please be clear that it is you, and *only* you, who have repeatedly
used the phrase "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."
> (And note that the
> governor of the state of Miami has absolutely no say in the whole
> matter).
It is Jeb Bush who appointed those who are responsible for actively
moving to disqualify thousands of african americans from voting. So
yes, the governor of Florida *did* have a significant part in the
electoral fraud. Whether his role extended beyond appointing those
directly responsible is still unknown.
> You, Sir, are a psychotic leftist lunatic.
> [more sardonic abuse snipped]
So when you can't rely on evidence, apart from citing Ann Coulter as if
she were a factual authority rather than a bad joke among responsible
journalists, you resort to the lowest sort of name calling. Ann would
be proud to have you among here supporters - your style of argument is
right up her alley.
This discussion is over. You've decided to think whatever you wish
regardless of whatever evidence is presented, and you've stooped to the
level of malicious name calling, so there's no point in talking with
you further.
From: Brian Palmer
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <0whznbik4i3.fsf@rescomp.Stanford.EDU>
···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2004-02-07 19:16:44 -0500, ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) said:
> >
> > > Many people say the same thing about Al Franken. I don't think this
> > > is getting anywhere.
> >
> > "Many people say" and "well documented" are two different
> > animals. Franken's research team has thoroughly researched and
> > documented Coulter's lies and half truths. Coulter has not even
> > attempted to return the favor, because she can't - Franken's
> > assertions are backed up by thousands of man hours of research, and
> > accompanied by proper citations of sources. Coulter's assertions are
> > backed up by incorrect and misleading footnotes, and are often
> > outright lies.
>
> Yeah, suuure. Did you check it? Do you even own Slander?
I recommend the non-partisan Spinsanity for information on Coulter's
misleading and contrafactual rhetoric and lies. For example, their
coverage of her latest book _Treason_ is at
<http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html>
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <ptcq2y36.fsf@comcast.net>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan.de>,
> ···@cartan.de (Nils G�sche) wrote:
>
>> And what was the outcome? George W. Bush. Finally, I am beginning to
>> understand why the American leftists are so eager to reintroduce
>> racist laws in the US.
>
> The outcome was that Bush was *not* elected. Apart from losing the
> popular vote, he had the election handed to him by a right wing Supreme
> Court, which ignored the fact that the contested State, Florida, was
> run, or rather, mismanaged, by the brother of one of the candidates[1].
The popular vote does not determine the outcome, it is the electoral
vote that does. That vote was cast on Dec. 18 and was tallied on
Jan. 5 Technically speaking, Bush *was* elected.
> The 2000 presidential election shows exactly the same thing that the
> aforementioned racist laws show; when you prevent everyone from having a
> say in the electoral process, you get a bad government as a result.
When your only choice is to elect a politician, it doesn't really
matter whether you have a say or not.
--
~jrm
On 2004-02-07 19:50:54 -0500, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net>
said:
> That vote was cast on Dec. 18 and was tallied on
> Jan. 5 Technically speaking, Bush *was* elected.
The tallies of fraudulent results are *not* "technically speaking,"
valid. The relevant fact is that election fraud was committed
preventing tens of thousands of voters from casting their votes. Any
right thinking court should have considered that as the paramount
concern. The US Supreme court majority was happy to have these voters
disenfrancised, since that yielded a result in line with their
political affiliations.
> When your only choice is to elect a politician, it doesn't really
> matter whether you have a say or not.
It is very convenient to believe that, because it relieves one of any
responsibility to participate in our electoral system. Sadly, there
really is a difference among politicians. All are bad in some ways, but
some are truly much worse than others. Even if the only difference
between Republican and Democratic administrations were the composition
of the Supreme Court, (and there are others) then that is reason
enough to know that the result of presidential elections is very important.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <u120jlsh.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-07 19:50:54 -0500, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net>
> said:
>> When your only choice is to elect a politician, it doesn't really
>> matter whether you have a say or not.
>
> It is very convenient to believe that, because it relieves one of any
> responsibility to participate in our electoral system.
It is indeed convenient, but hardly the reason I believe it. Must I
only believe things that are inconvenient?
> Sadly, there really is a difference among politicians.
How do you measure such small quantities?
On 2004-02-09 10:49:02 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> said:
> It is indeed convenient, but hardly the reason I believe it. Must I
> only believe things that are inconvenient?
All evidence indicates that people do believe this particular thing for
precisely because it is convenient, as there are demonstrably
significant differences between the two major political parties in the
US. You can't possibly be ignorant of them. In this case, the truth
happens to be inconvenient. It requires us to set aside our hopes for
real competence in elected officials, and vote for the option that is
less incompetent.
>
> > Sadly, there really is a difference among politicians.
>
> How do you measure such small quantities?
By the size of the Federal deficit - this shows a rather large
difference between the two major political parties in the US. By our
involvement in a war in Iraq which is at best irrelevant, and more
likely, counterproductive to our principal security goal in the region
- to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks. To assert that
neither of these has any significant effect on us is to engage in the
same sort of convenient thinking that dismisses all politicians as
equivalent.
To bring this back on topic - sort of - just because all instances of a
class suck to some extent, doesn't mean that all instances suck equally
;^)
raf
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <c1rsuh$h4s$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote:
...
> By our
>involvement in a war in Iraq which is at best irrelevant, and more
Well, here's a point that will be appreciated, I think,
no matter whose side one is on:
First, though, an informal survey of mine (of 3 or 4 people)
shows that other than technically-trained people,
or those in finance, that, incredible as it might seen,
very, very few people (Americans, that is) know how
many millions it takes to make a (U.S.) billion.
I ask people, and the usual answer is "what, 100?". How such
people can have any idea of all what effect eg the defense
budget has on them personally, I don't know.
Anyway, for my argument, they have to understand that
1,000 millions makes a billion. (Maybe suggesting that
we put commas every three digits would give them a
way of remembering it.)
--------
Ok, here it is:
How much do you suppose this war in Iraq is going to cost?
Well, $87 billion, plus 50 some earlier time (I think?),
plus x number of more years troops (100,000 or more) will
have to be there, etc -- let's say maybe $250 billion
in all.
Not too unreasonable, probably not off by more than 20 or 30
percent.
Now, how many *people* in this country. I believe it's
something close to 250 million -- again, close enough.
And it makes a division easy: $250 billion / 250 million people;
that's $1,000 for every man, woman, child, rest-home occupant,
prison-resident, etc.
OK, what's the size of the average family? Well, maybe
three -- let's assume that. (Or maybe two?)
Anyway, if three, that's $3,000 per family, for the Iraq
action, project, whatever.
Question to ask your listener: is it worth $3,000 out
of *your pocket* for this Iraq thing, getting rid of
Saddam (our own guy, after all), enriching the owners
of Halliburton, Bechtel, etc, etc?
Some will say "sure is!", others will say "no way" --
but at least it'll make them think, teach them how
to do this calculation for *other* such items.
----------------------- like this one: Star Wars.
I overheard someone claim that star wars would end
up costing a trillion dollars (make sure they understand
that that's a thousand billion). I have no idea
if that amount is correct or not, but what with
having to shuttle all this heavy stuff up into orbit,
via *thousands* of shuttle-flights (or equivalent lifts up),
I once read (who knows?) -- if a trillion isn't absurd
as an educated guess,
well, that's four times the iraq cost, ie *twelve* thousand
per family, on average (and don't forget all the existing
and even proposed tax-cuts!, so "average per family" might
not be so far off as a way to calculate a per-family amount) --
ask whether star-wars is worth twelve thousand dollars
(after tax!) out of their family's own wallet.
(And don't forget that they might have read or seen on
tv and *remembered* scientist after scientist after
weapons-expert all saying that there's about zero
chance of the think working, what with it being *so trivial*
for someone who already has ICBMs to install dummy
targets of various types, reflective coatings on
warheads to bounce off harmlessly any laser beams,
...)
Hey -- if you're in this group, *you* probably
have a pretty good grounding in science, at least
being able to understand articles in Scientific American,
New Scientist, Science, Nature, etc, when from time
to time they talk about star wars and its chance of
working.
Anyway, asking these questions gives you a
way to do your own survey of what people really
think, when presented with the actual cash cost
to themselves. (Again, after tax)
Cheers!
David
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message news:<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom>...
> On 2004-02-07 19:50:54 -0500, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net>
> said:
>
> > That vote was cast on Dec. 18 and was tallied on
> > Jan. 5 Technically speaking, Bush *was* elected.
>
> The tallies of fraudulent results are *not* "technically speaking,"
> valid. The relevant fact is that election fraud was committed
> preventing tens of thousands of voters from casting their votes.
"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
group, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
when unregistered voters presented themselves."
Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage, p. 105
Palast blames Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris for the problem, but the
fact is that neither, by law, can not remove a single name from the
voting roles. This is verified by the suit filed by the NAACP. They
did not sue Bush for removing legal voters. They named Harris as a
defendant, but they made the point that she could not remove any
citizen from the voting rolls. Notice this line in the suit: "The
county supervisors of elections are the official custodians of the
voter registration books in Florida....". Florida Code (98.0975 sec 4)
is specific, only county supervisors can remove citizens from the
voting rolls.
"32. Defendants (my note, most of these defendants are Democrats)
DAVID C. LEAHY, MIRIAM OLIPHANT, JOHN STAFFORD, PAM IORIO, ION SANCHO,
WILLIAM COWLES, and DEANIE LOWE are the county supervisors of
elections for Miami-Dade, Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Leon, Orange,
and Volusia counties, respectively. They are sued in their official
capacities in connection with actions taken under color of state law.
Miriam Oliphant is the successor to Jane Carroll, who was supervisor
of elections in Broward County during, and for 32 years before, the
November 2000 election. The county supervisors of elections are the
official custodians of the voter registration books in Florida and are
responsible for registering voters within their respective
geographical jurisdictions. See Fla. Stat. Ann. � 98.015. The county
supervisors of elections are required to ensure that all voter
registration and list maintenance procedures which they conduct are in
compliance with any applicable requirements for that county under the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that its general registration list
maintenance program is uniform, non-discriminatory and in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See Fla. Stat. Ann. �§ 98.015
and 98.065. In addition, the county supervisors of elections have the
duty of appointing election boards for each precinct in the county,
providing forms, materials and voting equipment for use on election
day, and providing training for election officials. See Fla. Stat.
Ann. � 102.012."
http://lists.democracygroups.org/pipermail/rightwatch/2001q1/000067.html
Here is the Florida Code that supports this fact in the NAACP suit:
Fla. Stat. 98.0975 (4) (1999)
(4) "Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must
attempt to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not
determine that the information provided by the division is incorrect,
the supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next
subsequent election the name of any person who is deceased, convicted
of a felony, or adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to
voting."
If read Palast closely, you will find that he uses words like
"targeted", ect. Why do you ask? Is because he found that not all of
the counties used the "protential felon list". Once he found that
information, he could not claim that all on the list were removed
because he knows that is not possible.
On 12/4/2000, he estimates that maybe 7,000 voters were removed by
using the felon list. He notes that in the 10 counties that he has
contacted, the some did not use the list.
"If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were
incorrectly targeted for removal from voting rosters."
And
"In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file
seemed to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't
use it at all. But most counties appear to have used the file as a
resource to purge names from their voter rolls, with some counties
making little -- or no -- effort at all to alert the "purged" voters.
Counties that did their best to vet the file discovered a high level
of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names incorrectly identified
as felons."
Salon.com 12/4/2000,
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
Apparently, the ratio did not hold up. While Palast contacted only 10
counties, The Palm Beach Post did a study that included all counties.
They found that 20 counties, or 30% of them did not use the list. That
fact clearly defeats the idea that all 57,700 voters listed were
actually purged. The Post could only find 1,104 were wrongfully
removed.
"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's
computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of
cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One
Naples man was told he couldn't vote because he was linked with a
felon still serving time in a Moore Haven prison."
"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes
in other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before
the election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had
written clemency orders, although most other states automatically
restore voting rights to felons when they complete their sentences.
This policy conflicted with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had
"no authority" to deny civil rights to those who had them restored in
other states. After the election, the state changed its policy."
Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001
Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,643
felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly
defeats the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001
This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/today/news_1.html
Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gore-2004-Community/message/11378?source=1
> Any right thinking court should have considered that as the paramount
> concern. The US Supreme court majority was happy to have these voters
> disenfrancised, since that yielded a result in line with their
> political affiliations.
Please show us a citation where it was presented to the court. Second,
Gore already had lost, what good was it going to do?
> > When your only choice is to elect a politician, it doesn't really
> > matter whether you have a say or not.
>
> It is very convenient to believe that, because it relieves one of any
> responsibility to participate in our electoral system. Sadly, there
> really is a difference among politicians. All are bad in some ways, but
> some are truly much worse than others. Even if the only difference
> between Republican and Democratic administrations were the composition
> of the Supreme Court, (and there are others) then that is reason
> enough to know that the result of presidential elections is very important.
If you have followed the election dispute in Florida, you will find
that a majority of the DEMOCRAT Judges sided with Bush, not the other
way around.
On the safe harbor date as being the final deadline.
From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris,
11/21/2000, all seven members (6 Democrats and 1 Independent) agreed
that the safe harbor date was the deadline.
"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate
only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their
inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in
either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer
from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section
102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully
in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55)
"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. � � 1-10 (1994)."
The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional
problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that
demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2,
15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the
remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida
Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. �
5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy�remanding to the Florida Supreme
Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until
December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election
code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized
by Fla. Stat. �102.168(8) (2000).
Link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
The final count on the safe harbor date was 6 Democrats, 1
Independent, and 5 Republican, while 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans
disagreed. They all agreed that Dec 12 was the deadline as laid out in
Florida Code. It is unconstitutional to change this code after the
election has taken place.
On the equal protection problems. It was Gore's own Florida Campaign
Chair (Fla. Attorney General Bob Butterworth - Democrat) who was one
of the first to make the argument.
From Gore v. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls (Democrat) writing....
"The Palm Beach County board did not abuse its discretion in its
review and recounting process."
"Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit
court in and for Palm Beach County."
"Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of
this process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such
process and standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards,
perhaps contrary to Title III, Section (5) of the United States code."
"Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in
its review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard
utilized was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under
another standard would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier
situation within one county, as well as with respect to other
counties."
"The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida
enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter
dated November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of
the Palm each County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows:
"A two-tier system would have the effect of treating voters
differently, depending upon what county they voted in."
The Attorney General for the State of Florida was Bob Butterworth (D).
Butterworth was also the Florida Campaign Chair for Al Gore. He quit
Gore's campaign a few days before he wrote this letter to Palm Beach
County.
http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
From the dissent, Footnote #26 (Chief Justice Wells dissent)
"Also problematic with the majority's analysis is that the majority
only requires that the "under-votes" are to be counted. How about the
"over-votes?" Section 101.5614(6) provides that a ballot should not be
counted "[i]f an elector marks more names than there are persons to be
elected to an office," meaning the voter voted for more than one
person for president. The underlying premise of the majority's
rationale is that in such a close race a manual review of ballots
rejected by the machines is necessary to ensure that all legal votes
cast are counted. The majority, however, ignores the over-votes. Could
it be said, without reviewing the over-votes, that the machine did not
err in not counting them?"
"It seems patently erroneous to me to assume that the vote-counting
machines can err when reading under-votes but not err when reading
over-votes. Can the majority say, without having the over-votes looked
at, that there are no legal votes among the over-votes?"
and
"Justice Wells writing his dissent said "I must regrettably conclude
that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court
fails to make provision for....(9) the effect of the differing
intra-county standards."
and
"Harding with Shaw concurring. "...as I have serious concerns that
Appellant's interpretation of 102.168 would violate other votes'
rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States."
Notice what Justice Wells said, "(9) the effect of the differing
intra-county standards."
From Gore vs. Harris, 12/8/2000 See:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
Note that none of these judges or the Fla. Attny. General are
Republicans. The count here is 4 Democrats and 1 Independent.
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional
problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that
demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2,
15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the
remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida
Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. �
5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy�remanding to the Florida Supreme
Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until
December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election
code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized
by Fla. Stat. �102.168(8) (2000).
Link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
On 2004-02-10 16:41:26 -0500, ·····@prodigy.net (·····@prodigy.net)
said in response to raffael cavallaro:
>> It is very convenient to believe that, because it relieves one of any
>> responsibility to participate in our electoral system. Sadly, there
>> really is a difference among politicians. All are bad in some ways, but
>> some are truly much worse than others. Even if the only difference
>> between Republican and Democratic administrations were the composition
>> of the Supreme Court, (and there are others) then that is reason
>> enough to know that the result of presidential elections is very
>> important.
>
> If you have followed the election dispute in Florida, you will find
> that a majority of the DEMOCRAT Judges sided with Bush, not the other
> way around.
You are confused. There were *two* supreme courts involved in the 2000
presidential election. The Florida Supreme Court, whose Justices are,
as you say, majority Democrat, ruled to *allow* the recount to go
forward, and ordered higher Gore tallies to be included in the
official result, even before the statewide manual recount was
undertaken. Bush and the Republican party appealed this Florida Supreme
Court ruling to the *US Supreme Court*. The US Supreme Court majority,
Republican by party affiliation, overturned the Florida Supreme Court's
ruling, and disallowed the recount, handing the election to Bush.
As for Katherine Harris, she was a protegee and friend of Jeb Bush, and
Florida Chairwoman of the Bush for President campaign, so her party
affiliation is properly read as "Bush."
Moreover, lest we forget, both Thomas and Scalia were legally required
to recuse themselves from the 12/2000 presidential election ruling,
because they both had close relatives, Thomas's wife, and Scalia's son,
who had a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. Neither
recused himself. These two, were, of course, the margin of majority in
the US Supreme Court decision:
(from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/sup-d22.shtml)
"While Thomas was deliberating the case?or waiting to sign on to the
decision arrived at by Scalia and Rehnquist?Thomas's wife Virginia was
at her job at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank,
collecting r�sum�s for appointments in a possible Bush administration.
..this job would have been wasted effort in the event Gore had won the
presidency...
Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, ?Disqualification of
Justices, Judges or Magistrates,? requires court officers to excuse
themselves if a spouse has ?an interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding.?
Besides Thomas, Scalia also took part in the decision while a close
relative had a substantial interest in the outcome. Scalia's son Eugene
is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where
one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush's case
before the Supreme Court."
As regards the illegal disqualification of voters, this comes from your
own source:
> Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
" The FDLE fielded more than 5,400 appeals, and found that more than
2,500 people on the list were not felons."
2,500 - and those are just the people who went through the appeals
process. The real total is much higher, since many voters only learned
of their disqualification *at the polls* and so, had no chance to
appeal.
" Of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, more than 14,600 matched
a felon by name, birthdate, race and gender."
Which means that even your source can't account for close to 5000 who
were removed illegally. But the reality is worse still:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html
"one in eight votes in Gadsden, Florida's "Blackest" county, were
"spoiled" and never counted. The optical readers knocked out every
paper ballot with a stray mark. Over 2000 ballots voided .... zero
doubt that Gadsden alone accounted for Gore?s loss.
Here's the ugly part. In next-door "white" Tallahassee, the same
ballots and same counting machines returned "spoiled" ballots to voters
so they could vote again. Almost no white votes were lost."
Referring to the scrub list that Jeb Bush's administration encouraged
counties to use, and, which, by your own source's admission, 70% of
counties *did* use:
"The company that came up with this rotten little "purge" list has,
under threat of suit from the NAACP, confessed that the total purge
targeted 94,000 voters -- and that, at outside tops, only 3,000 may be
illegal voters."
Do that math - tens of thousands of falsely purged voters, the
overwhelming majority of whom would have voted for Gore.
and from http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2
"Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of
state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both prot�g�es of Governor
Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by
state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states
where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A
portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can
be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by
ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a
firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was
that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state
appears to have spent its money wisely."
> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,643
> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes.
This figure is still far smaller than the number of falsely purged
"felons" on lists that we know 70% of counties used, - about 5000, even
by your own source's count, and far more by that of Palast and others-
not to mention the at least 2000 african americans, overwhelmingly
democratic voters, whose ballots were rejected by automatic readers,
with no chance to recast them. Their white counterparts whose ballots
were rejected by machines, were given new ballots, and their votes
*were* counted.
The Bush campaign knew that there were more than enough votes to elect
Gore if the statewide manual recount mandated by the Florida Supreme
Court had been allowed to go forward. That's why they appealed to the
Republican dominated US Supreme Court.
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
·········································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
> On 2004-02-10 16:41:26 -0500, ·····@prodigy.net (·····@prodigy.net)
> said in response to raffael cavallaro:
>
> >> It is very convenient to believe that, because it relieves one of any
> >> responsibility to participate in our electoral system. Sadly, there
> >> really is a difference among politicians. All are bad in some ways, but
> >> some are truly much worse than others. Even if the only difference
> >> between Republican and Democratic administrations were the composition
> >> of the Supreme Court, (and there are others) then that is reason
> >> enough to know that the result of presidential elections is very
> >> important.
> >
> > If you have followed the election dispute in Florida, you will find
> > that a majority of the DEMOCRAT Judges sided with Bush, not the other
> > way around.
>
> You are confused.
No, I am not confused. Unless you have actually read the court cases out of
Florida, you may not know what was really happening. Not many of the major
media outlets when into detail with their reports.
> There were *two* supreme courts involved in the 2000
> presidential election.
Correct.
> The Florida Supreme Court, whose Justices are, as you say,
> majority Democrat, ruled to *allow* the recount to go forward,
> Bush and the Republican party appealed this Florida Supreme
> Court ruling to the *US Supreme Court*. The US Supreme Court majority,
> Republican by party affiliation, overturned the Florida Supreme Court's
> ruling, and disallowed the recount, handing the election to Bush.
The Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court issued an order for a
partial recount of disputed ballots. This was a violation of both Florida
Election Code and the US Constitution.
Florida Code requires a recount of ALL ballots were there is a machine
problem.
(a) "The manual recount must include all ballots affected by the relevant
defect. If a manual recount is done, the Legislature directed that it must
count "all ballots" in the county having machine problems, FLA.STAT.
�102.166(5)(c), or if the problem is defective or damaged ballots, then "all
such ballots" must be manually recounted, FLA.STAT. �101.5614(5). Partial
manual recounts were nowhere authorized by the Legislature."
Link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf
The Florida Supreme Court found that these machines had erred, yet they
violated Florida Code by issuing an order to recount only the undervote.
Clearly Florida Code required that all ballots to be included.
Footnote #26 (Chief Justice Wells dissent)
"Also problematic with the majority's analysis is that the majority only
requires that the "under-votes" are to be counted. How about the
"over-votes?" Section 101.5614(6) provides that a ballot should not be
counted "[i]f an elector marks more names than there are persons to be
elected to an office," meaning the voter voted for more than one person for
president. The underlying premise of the majority's rationale is that in
such a close race a manual review of ballots rejected by the machines is
necessary to ensure that all legal votes cast are counted. The majority,
however, ignores the over-votes. Could it be said, without reviewing the
over-votes, that the machine did not err in not counting them?"
"It seems patently erroneous to me to assume that the vote-counting machines
can err when reading under-votes but not err when reading over-votes. Can
the majority say, without having the over-votes looked at, that there are no
legal votes among the over-votes?"
From Gore vs. Harris, 12/8/2000 Link
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
In fact, Gore was warned by Judge Sauls (Democrat), that he was required by
law to challenge all of the ballots, yet he failed to do so.
"Further, this Court would further conclude and find that the properly
stated cause of action under Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes to
contest a statewide federal election, the Plaintiff would necessarily have
to place at issue and seek as a remedy with the attendant burden of proof, a
review and recount on all ballots, and all of the counties in this state
with respect to the particular alleged irregularities or inaccuracies in the
balloting or counting processes alleged to have occurred."
"As recently stated by Judge Klein with the concurrence of Chief Judge
Warner in the Fourth District Court of Appeal case, of Bedell v. Palm Beach
Canvassing Board, Section 102.168 provides in Subsection (1) that the
certification of elections may be contested for presidential elections.
Section 103.011 provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as
elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice
President who receive the highest number of votes."
"There is in this type of election, one statewide election, and one
certification. Palm Beach County did not elect any person as a presidential
elector, but, rather, the election with the winner-take-all proposition,
dependent on the statewide vote."
Gore vs Harris, 12/3/200
http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
Instead of following the advice of both his Campaign Chair, and Judge Sauls,
Gore continued to try to only get recounts in 4 Democrat friendly counties.
"Nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes," Gore lawyer David Boies told
the U.S. Supreme Court in the last hearing."
"The media analysis shows that among those 3,690 overvotes that could be
considered legitimate votes, 6 out of 10 were cast for Gore."
"Instead of pursuing overvotes, the Gore team sought manual recounts of
undervotes in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia
counties."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Recount__Bush.shtml
The St. Petersburg Times was one of the sponsors of the NORC Study.
The order from the Florida Supreme Court violated the US Constitution
because Art. II, �1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution gives the
*SOLE* right to write election law to the state legislatures. When the FSC
changed the law as to what ballots were to be included in a manual recount
from ALL ballots to just the undervoted ballots, they became the author of
election code. Since the Constitution is clear on who rights the election
code, the FSC violated the US Constitution.
"Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably
being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order
directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited
decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme
Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens
must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its
procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of
the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief
Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See
____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26)."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
As I pointed out in my earlier post, the majority of Democrats and
Republicans agreed that the safe harbor date was the ultimate deadline. The
count between both courts was 6 Democrats, 1 Independent, 5 Republicans.
I also quoted the Florida AG (Gore's Campaign Chair), Judge Sauls, and 3
members of the FSC who also made the case for the equal protection problem,
which ultimately stopped the recount. Here we have 4 Democrats, 1
Independents, and no Republicans. Add this to the majority (7 more justices)
of the SCOTUS and you will find a bi-partisan argument that there is an
equal protection problem with 6 partisan Democrats who want to throw out the
rules.
While you are tying to assert that the Republicans were biased in their
decision, the fact that both the Safe Harbor Deadline and the Equal
Protection problems found on a bi-partisan basis and by the majority
involved, proves that assertion to be false.
> and ordered higher Gore tallies to be included in the
> official result, even before the statewide manual recount was
> undertaken.
The ordered the tallies that violated the equal protection clause included
into that totals. Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties illegally changed their
counting standard to include "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads.
(b) "Any manual recount cannot count dimpled or pregnant chads. If a manual
recount is done, it should not count a ballot as a vote unless the ballot
left a "clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the
canvassing board." FLA.STAT.�101.5614(5). See also FLA.STAT. �102.166(7)(b).
This was previously determined by the only canvassing board to address the
issue before this election, Palm Beach County, as meaning that chads could
only be counted as votes if at least two corners were detatched, and not if
the chad was merely dimpled or pregnant. See: Petitioner Exh. J. Prior to
this election, no Florida county board had ever counted a dimpled or
pregnant ballot as a vote."
The courts called this the "1990 Standard" of the "1990 Guideline".
From Gore v. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls writing....
"The Palm Beach County board did not abuse its discretion in its review and
recounting process."
"Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit court in
and for Palm Beach County."
"Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of this
process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such process and
standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards, perhaps contrary to
Title III, Section (5) of the United States code."
"Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in its
review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard utilized
was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under another standard
would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier situation within one
county, as well as with respect to other counties."
"The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida
enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter dated
November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of the Palm
each County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows: "A two-tier
system would have the effect of treating voters differently, depending upon
what county they voted in."
"The voter in a county where a manual count was conducted, would benefit
from having a better chance of having his or her vote actually counted, than
a voter in a county where a hand count was halted. As the State's chief
legal officer, I feel a duty to warn that the final certified total for
balloting in the State of Florida includes figures generated from this
two-tier system of differing behavior by official Canvassing Boards, the
state will incur a legal jeopardy under both the United States and the state
constitutions."
"This legal jeopardy could potentially leave Florida having all of its
votes, in effect, disqualified, and this state being barred from the
Electoral College's election of a President."
Link: http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
It is quite apparent that the FSC should not have allowed those tallies
using those illegal counting standards to be entered into the totals.
We have both Sauls and Butterworth who have found a problem. 3 of the 7 of
the FSC, and 7 of the 9 of the SCOTUS. Again the bi-partisan majority have
found an equal protection problem. A bi-partisan majority of 12 vs. 6
Democrats. Again, I can't find the Republican bias.
> As for Katherine Harris, she was a protegee and friend of Jeb Bush, and
> Florida Chairwoman of the Bush for President campaign, so her party
> affiliation is properly read as "Bush."
>
> Moreover, lest we forget, both Thomas and Scalia were legally required
> to recuse themselves from the 12/2000 presidential election ruling,
> because they both had close relatives, Thomas's wife, and Scalia's son,
> who had a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. Neither
> recused himself. These two, were, of course, the margin of majority in
> the US Supreme Court decision:
>
> (from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/sup-d22.shtml)
>
> "While Thomas was deliberating the case?or waiting to sign on to the
> decision arrived at by Scalia and Rehnquist?Thomas's wife Virginia was
> at her job at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank,
> collecting r�sum�s for appointments in a possible Bush administration.
>
> ..this job would have been wasted effort in the event Gore had won the
> presidency...
>
> Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, ?Disqualification of
> Justices, Judges or Magistrates,? requires court officers to excuse
> themselves if a spouse has ?an interest that could be substantially
> affected by the outcome of the proceeding.?
>
> Besides Thomas, Scalia also took part in the decision while a close
> relative had a substantial interest in the outcome. Scalia's son Eugene
> is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where
> one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush's case
> before the Supreme Court."
This argument would not have put Gore into the white house. All this would
have done was to throw the race into the Republican controlled congress
where Gore would surely lose.
> As regards the illegal disqualification of voters, this comes from your
> own source:
>
> > Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
>
> " The FDLE fielded more than 5,400 appeals, and found that more than
> 2,500 people on the list were not felons."
>
> 2,500 - and those are just the people who went through the appeals
> process. The real total is much higher, since many voters only learned
> of their disqualification *at the polls* and so, had no chance to
> appeal.
We are still back to the numbers of the Palm Beach Post. They checked the
numbers that were removed and could only find 1,104.
Palast claims that if a voter was not on the roles, they were not allowed to
vote. That was proven to be false by the Miami Herald.
"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial group,
but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls through the
state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no evidence of that.
Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that election officials
were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when unregistered voters
presented themselves."
Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage, p. 105
> " Of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, more than 14,600 matched
> a felon by name, birthdate, race and gender."
>
> Which means that even your source can't account for close to 5000 who
> were removed illegally. But the reality is worse still:
The did account for them. Remember they checked all 19,398 and could only
find 1,104 who were wrongfully removed.
"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not
share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he
couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."
"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."
Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001
Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
Where is the proof that the other 4,000 were wrongfully removed?
> http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html
>
> "one in eight votes in Gadsden, Florida's "Blackest" county, were
> "spoiled" and never counted. The optical readers knocked out every
> paper ballot with a stray mark. Over 2000 ballots voided .... zero
> doubt that Gadsden alone accounted for Gore?s loss.
>
> Here's the ugly part. In next-door "white" Tallahassee, the same
> ballots and same counting machines returned "spoiled" ballots to voters
> so they could vote again. Almost no white votes were lost."
I don't think you quite understand the argument that is being made here.
Under Florida system, each county elects their election officials who are
responsible for the day to day operations. They make the budgets, pick the
polling places, hire the workers, pick the equipment, ect.
Both of these counties (Leon and Gadsden) were run by Democrat Election
Supervisors. The argument you have put forth accuses the Democrats of trying
to make sure that Democrats were disenfranchised. Are really sure that you
want to make this argument??
From the USCCR dissent:
"A reader of the majority report would be led to think that many tens of
thousands of Floridians tried to register their vote for president and
failed to have it count because Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State
Katherine Harris didn't want their votes to count and failed in their
responsibility to ensure that they did. "State officials," the report
declares, "failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent
this disenfranchisement." Chair Berry, introducing the report at the June 8
meeting of the Commission, charged that the Governor and Secretary Harris
had been "grossly derelict" in fulfilling their responsibilities."
"But which officials were responsible for the conduct of elections in
Florida's constitutionally decentralized system of government? Power and
responsibility were lodged almost entirely in the hands of county officials,
the most important of them the 67 county supervisors of elections. If anyone
was intent on suppressing the black vote or to "disenfranchise" anyone else,
it would have required the cooperation of these local officials."
"Thus, it seems natural to inquire about the political affiliations of
Florida's supervisors of elections. If the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
seeks to show that the presidential election was stolen by Republicans, led
by the governor and the secretary of state, it would be logical to expect
that they had the greatest success in those counties in which the electoral
machinery was in the hands of fellow Republicans. Conversely, it is very
difficult to see any political motive that would lead Democratic local
officials to try to keep the most faithful members of their party from the
polls and to somehow spoil the ballots of those who did make it into the
voting booth."
"The report never asks this question, though it seems an interesting
hypothesis to explore. The data with which to explore it are readily
available. When we examined the connection between rates of ballot spoilage
across counties and the political affiliation of the supervisor of
elections, we found precisely the opposite of what might be expected. There
was indeed a relationship between having a Republican running the county's
election and the ballot spoilage rate. But it was a negative correlation
of -.0467."
"Having a Democratic supervisor of elections was also correlated with the
spoilage rate-by + 0.424. Dr. Lott has found that the ballot spoilage rate
in counties with Democratic supervisors were three times as high as in those
with Republican supervisors (see Lott's Table 3). Should we conclude that
Republican local officials were far more interested than Democrats in making
sure that every vote counted?"
"Of the 25 Florida counties with the highest rate of vote spoilage, in how
many was the election supervised by a Republican? The answer is zero. All
but one of the 25 had Democratic chief election officers, and the one
exception was in the hands of an official with no party affiliation."
"Dr. Lott provides a fuller examination of the possible impact of having a
Democratic supervisor of elections in his Table 3, and adds another related
variable-whether or not the supervisor was African American. Having
Democratic officials in charge increases the ballot spoilage rate
substantially, and the effect is stronger still when that official is
African American. (All African American supervisors of elections are
Democrats.) Lott estimates that a 1 percent increase in the black share of
voters in counties with Democratic election officials increases the number
of spoiled ballots by a striking 135 percent."
"We do not cite this as evidence that Democratic officials, for some bizarre
reason, sought to disenfranchise blacks, and that black Democratic officials
were even more eager to do so. That is manifestly absurd. It is worth noting
for two reasons. First, it nicely illustrates the limitations of ecological
correlations. Would anyone want to draw the conclusion from this correlation
that the solution was to elect more Republican supervisors of elections?"
"Second, it has important bearing on the question of who is to blame for the
large numbers of spoiled ballots in minority areas. The majority report
argues that much of the problem was due to voting technology-the use of
punch card machines or optical scanning methods that did not provide
feedback to the voter produced a higher rate of ballot spoilage. But who
decided that the voters of Gadsden County (the state's only black-majority
county and the one with the highest rate of spoiled ballots) would use an
optical scanning system in which votes were centrally recorded? Who decided
that Palm Beach and Miami-Dade county voters would use punch card machines?
Certainly it was not Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris. Nor was it Lawton Chiles.
It was Democratic local officials in those heavily Democratic counties who
made those choices."
"It is worth noting that after these findings were mentioned at the June 27,
2001 hearing of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Chair
of the Commission on Civil Rights professed to feeling no surprise. The
Commission's Report, she maintained, had noted that local as well as state
officials had responsibility for the conduct of the election. The report,
though, devotes far more attention to Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of
State Katherine Harris than to county supervisors of elections who have
primary responsibility for election day procedures. Furthermore, there is no
hint in the report that the local officials in those counties that accounted
for a large majority of the spoiled ballots were Democrats who had no
conceivable interest in suppressing the black vote. It is true that the
party affiliation of Governor Bush and Secretary of State Harris are not
mentioned either. But that hardly matters because everyone knows what party
they belong to, while few are aware of the fact that Florida's electoral
machinery is largely in the hands of county officials who are Democrats."
"It is easy, of course, to say with hindsight that Florida should have had a
uniform system of voting and a common technology for all elections. The
Commission recommends that. But if Governor Bush and Republican legislators
had proposed adopting such a system before the 2000 election, we can imagine
the outcry from their political opponents, who would have seen such a move
as an improper attempt by the governor to control election procedures.
Indeed, it might well have been argued that such a decision would have had a
disparate impact on minority voters, since centralizing the electoral system
would have diminished the power of the Democratic local officials they had
chosen to put in office. It could even have been argued that this transfer
of power from officials who had the support of most minority voters would be
a violation of the Voting Right Act, yet another attempt to deprive
minorities of their opportunity to exercise political power!"
"Furthermore, it is inappropriate to be playing the blame game when there is
no evidence that anyone understood that the use of certain voting
technologies might increase the rate of voter error for some groups. Those
who charge that African Americans were "disenfranchised" in Florida have
never asked why it is that no one raised this issue before the election. If
punch card balloting, for instance, has a racially discriminatory effect,
why had not the NAACP, the Urban League, or any other organization belonging
to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ever uttered a peep about it
before November 2000? If civil rights leaders had understood that different
voting systems are conducive to different rates of voter error, and that
some can serve to disadvantage groups with below average literacy skills,
why didn't they raise the issue publicly and demand electoral reforms? If
they did not grasp this fact, it is hard to see why we should assume that
public officials did."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm
> Referring to the scrub list that Jeb Bush's administration encouraged
> counties to use, and, which, by your own source's admission, 70% of
> counties *did* use:
The numbers by the Palm Beach Post still stand. The fact is that Bush did
not remove a single name from the voting rolls. The counties supervisors are
to check the list before the names are removed.
Fla. Stat. 98.0975 (4) (1999)
(4) "Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must attempt
to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not determine
that the information provided by the division is incorrect, the supervisor
must remove from the registration books by the next subsequent election the
name of any person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or adjudicated
mentally incapacitated with respect to voting."
This law was enacted under the Governor Lawton Chiles (Democrat)
Administration. It was came about because of the voter fraud in the 1997
Miami Mayoral race.
> "The company that came up with this rotten little "purge" list has,
> under threat of suit from the NAACP, confessed that the total purge
> targeted 94,000 voters -- and that, at outside tops, only 3,000 may be
> illegal voters."
Remember what I said in the earlier post? Palast used words like "targeted".
Targeted is NOT the same as removed. As the Post said, they could only find
1,104 who were wrongfully removed.
You can argue the targeted side all you want, but that fact is not all were
removed, thus the "targeted" argument is not the same as the "removed"
argument.
> Do that math - tens of thousands of falsely purged voters, the
> overwhelming majority of whom would have voted for Gore.
The Post has already done the math. When less than 20,000 were removed, and
only 1,104 wrongfully removed, your "tens of thousands" number is not a
valid number. As I noted, "targeted" and "purged" are two different things.
.
> and from http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2
>
> "Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of
> state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both prot�g�es of Governor
> Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by
> state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states
> where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A
> portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can
> be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by
> ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a
> firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was
> that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state
> appears to have spent its money wisely."
But as the post pointed out, not all were removed.
> > The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> > thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,643
> > felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
> > Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
> > illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes.
>
> This figure is still far smaller than the number of falsely purged
> "felons" on lists that we know 70% of counties used, - about 5000, even
> by your own source's count,
Actually it is not. Even though the Post found otherwise, let's take the
5,000 number and compare it to the 5,643 number. Since they are from the
same pool, i.e. 68% democrats, don't these number cancel each other out? In
other words neither gain an advantage.
> and far more by that of Palast and others-
The Palm Beach Post was one of the sponsors of the NORC study. They seemed
to do their best to be an unbiased source of information. I have found
Palast to be anti-Bush, thus he is not an objective source of information. I
would take the Post's word over Palast's.
> not to mention the at least 2000 african americans, overwhelmingly
> democratic voters, whose ballots were rejected by automatic readers,
> with no chance to recast them. Their white counterparts whose ballots
> were rejected by machines, were given new ballots, and their votes
> *were* counted.
You made the case that the Democrats did not want these votes to count.
> The Bush campaign knew that there were more than enough votes to elect
> Gore if the statewide manual recount mandated by the Florida Supreme
> Court had been allowed to go forward. That's why they appealed to the
> Republican dominated US Supreme Court.
I am not sure what kind of logic that you are using here. Of the ballots
counted by the NORC, they found that Bush would have WON.
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The
Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his
537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the
Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards
that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the
voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to
be counted."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
The order of the FSC was to only recount these types of ballots, i.e. just
the undervote. The media claims that Bush would have WON if the order of the
FSC was allowed to continue, using the counting standards that had been
adopted by Palm Beach County.
How can you say that Bush knew he would have lost, when the media says that
the ballots show that he would have won??
Much of your post is a very confused misreading of what I wrote.
Despite quoting (as opposed to *citing*) large chunks of articles,
you're rambling post misses the very simple fundamentals:
1. The US Supreme Court prevented a statewide manual recount that would
have shown Gore the winner. That's *why* the Bush campaign appealed to
the US Supreme Court - the Bush campaign did *not* want the manual
recount to go forward - they knew that Gore would win if it did.
2. Two Conservative Republican Justices, Thomas and Scalia, acted
*illegally* by failing to recuse themselves even though each had a very
close relative (Thomas, his wife, Scalia, his son) with a substantial
interest in the outcome of the case. Absent these two votes, the US
Supreme court would have handed down the *opposite* decision, the
recount would have proceeded, and Gore would now be President of the US.
3. Thousands of african americans, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters,
were either,
a. denied the right to vote at all, or,
b. had their ballots invalidated in circumstances where white
voters were allowed to recast their ballots and have their votes count.
a. was accomplished when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hired a new
private firm, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to illegally
put as many likely Gore voters on a "purge list" as possible, whether
they were really felons or not.
b. was accomplished by failing to provide voters in predominantly
african american counties with the opportunity to recast misread
ballots. This part is just simple racism operating here, not party
affiliation.
The number represented by a is larger than that represented by b, and a
was orchestrated by George Bush's brother, and his brother's protege,
and chair of the Bush campaign in Florida.
The conclusion is quite straightforward, and doesn't require
complicated analyses of various court opinions to see: The Bush
campaign stole the Presidency by a combination of illegal means.
Now a few details:
On 2004-02-11 03:41:40 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> While you are tying to assert that the Republicans were biased in their
> decision
No. Read what I wrote. I said *nothing* about any bias of the Florida
Supreme Court. I spoke about Jeb Bush, his appointees, and the *US*
Supreme Court.
I wrote that the conservative Republicans of the US Supreme Court were
biased, so theyeither failed to recuse themselves as legally required
(Thomas and Scalia), or broke with their own states rights position to
overturn the ruling of a State Supreme Court (Florida) in a matter of
the interpretation of *State* election law.
Scalia and Thomas were both acting illegally by not recusing
themselves. This alone was enough to change the outcome of the case
before the US Supreme Court. All those Republican-appointed Justices of
the US Supreme Court who had previously staked out a position in favor
of states rights, acted in a biased and hypocritical manner, when they
overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in a matter of State election
law. Read the dissent - there were *no* issues of *federal* election
law raised in the Florida case. Nevertheless, stated advocates of
states rights overturned a State Supreme Court ruling in a matter of
State election law. Pure hypocrisy, resulting from party bias.
What happened in Florida was about what candidate one supported, and
race. African americans were unlikely Bush supporters, so their votes
were less likely to be cast and counted fairly. Whites were more likely
Bush supporters, so their misread ballots were recast, unlike the at
least 2000 such misread votes of african american voters. Whites were
also far less likely to be put on the "purge list" incorrectly. This is
why Jeb Bush and Harris were happy to spend so much money to contract
with a new private firm to increase the size of the "purge list." They
knew that those "purged" were likely Gore voters.
>> " Of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, more than 14,600 matched
>> a felon by name, birthdate, race and gender."
>>
>> Which means that even your source can't account for close to 5000 who
>> were removed illegally. But the reality is worse still:
>
> The did account for them. Remember they checked all 19,398 and could only
> find 1,104 who were wrongfully removed.
Wrong. They could only *verify* that 1,104 of the almost 5,000 who did
*not* match "a felon by name, birthdate, race, and gender" were denied
the right to vote illegally. That is, the Herald researchers proved to
their satisfaction that these 1100 people, who didn't match felon
names, etc., were definitely not former felons. That means that over
4,000 people were on the purge list who couldn't be matched to felons,
and whom Herald researchers couldn't verify were removed illegally. But
guess what - there's no legal requirement to *prove* to the Miami
Herald that you're not a felon to vote in Florida. You can only be
removed if the State can affirmatively show that you *are* a felon. And
those 4,000 people were on the list for *no* reason, other than being
black and/or likely Gore voters.
Moreover, the firm doing the "purge list" subsequently admitted, under
threat of lawsuit by the NAACP, that the purge list was far larger than
they admitted at the time of the Herald article you cite. In fact,
there were actually many more than 5000 people denied the right to vote.
This was a systematic attempt to cut as many african americans from the
voter lists as possible, since the Bush Campaign, chaired in Florida by
Florida Attorney General, Katherine Harris , the same person
responsible for overseeing the generation and application of the purge
list - no conflict of interest there! - knew that the larger the
number of african americans voting, the less likely Bush was to carry
Florida.
Then, when it looked as if a fair count would show Gore the winner, the
Republican Conservatives of the US Supreme Court acted illegally by
failing to recuse themselves (Thomas and Scalia) or hypocritically, by
going against their own stated position, as well as precedent, and
reversing a State Supreme Court decision on a matter of state election
law.
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
·········································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
> Much of your post is a very confused misreading of what I wrote.
> Despite quoting (as opposed to *citing*) large chunks of articles,
> you're rambling post misses the very simple fundamentals:
>
> 1. The US Supreme Court prevented a statewide manual recount that would
> have shown Gore the winner. That's *why* the Bush campaign appealed to
> the US Supreme Court - the Bush campaign did *not* want the manual
> recount to go forward - they knew that Gore would win if it did.
The media proved this reasoning to be false. First, there was not a full
statewide recount. There was only a recount of the 60,000 undervoted
ballots. That left 110,000 other disputed ballots unchecked.
Second, the NORC study recounted the votes as ordered by the FSC in Gore vs.
Harris on 12/8/2000 (the case that was reversed by the SCOTUS). They found
that Bush would have TRIPLED his lead, not lost the election.
Since the media recount proved (within their margin of error) that Bush
would have won, your point is invalid.
> 2. Two Conservative Republican Justices, Thomas and Scalia, acted
> *illegally* by failing to recuse themselves even though each had a very
> close relative (Thomas, his wife, Scalia, his son) with a substantial
> interest in the outcome of the case. Absent these two votes, the US
> Supreme court would have handed down the *opposite* decision, the
> recount would have proceeded, and Gore would now be President of the US.
Again, as noted above, the recount would shown Bush as the winner. So this
point is invalid from the start.
Further, IF the recount (with counting standards deemed illegal by Judge
Sauls) was allowed to be completed. All Bush would have to do is file a safe
harbor complaint under 3 USC 5, and have all the state's electors thrown out
of the electoral college (as Judge Sauls - Democrat - noted was very
possible). Thus neither candidate would have the necessary 271 electoral
college votes to win the office. That would throw the vote into the
REPUBLICAN controlled congress. Of course, they would NOT have voted Gore
into office.
The other REAL possibility was because of what was perceived as the
violations of the Safe Harbor provisions. The Fla. Legislature may have been
able to sent their own slate of electors. It would have been up to the
Congress to pick the electors that would have been allowed to participate.
Again, as Judge Sauls (D) pointed out, Palm Beach County had illegally
changed their counting standards, thus the Republican Congress would have
picked the slate sent by the legislature, i.e. Gore would lose this contest.
With or without the SCOTUS, once the FSC issued the order to include ballots
recounted under an illegal standard, Gore lost.
> 3. Thousands of african americans, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters,
> were either,
> a. denied the right to vote at all, or,
Where is the proof? Both the Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post found
otherwise.
> b. had their ballots invalidated in circumstances where white
> voters were allowed to recast their ballots and have their votes count.
If this is true, why did the Democrats do this (you made the case against
the Democrats in the previous post).
Where is the proof that the Democrats were trying to throw the election to
Bush? And why would they?
> a. was accomplished when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hired a new
> private firm, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to illegally
> put as many likely Gore voters on a "purge list" as possible, whether
> they were really felons or not.
Where is the proof??? The USCCR could not prove this, how can you?
> b. was accomplished by failing to provide voters in predominantly
> african american counties with the opportunity to recast misread
> ballots. This part is just simple racism operating here, not party
> affiliation.
You can't run away from party affiliation. Since the DEMOCRATS were in
charge of those counties in your example in the previous post, they are
responsible for not allowing voters who spoiled their ballots, another
ballot to vote.
No matter how hard you try, the FACTS are the Democrats controlled the
elections in those counties (Gadsden and Leon). If you are going to lay
blame, you have no choice by to blame the Democrats. You can't blame
Republicans for the actions of Democrats.
> The number represented by a is larger than that represented by b, and a
> was orchestrated by George Bush's brother, and his brother's protege,
> and chair of the Bush campaign in Florida.
Why did were the Democrats involve? You made the argument, but now you are
ignoring them?
> The conclusion is quite straightforward, and doesn't require
> complicated analyses of various court opinions to see: The Bush
> campaign stole the Presidency by a combination of illegal means.
Your conclusion is invalid on every point. The fact is that you made the
case that the Democrats were out to make sure the Gore lost.
> Now a few details:
>
> On 2004-02-11 03:41:40 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> > While you are tying to assert that the Republicans were biased in their
> > decision
>
> No. Read what I wrote. I said *nothing* about any bias of the Florida
> Supreme Court. I spoke about Jeb Bush, his appointees, and the *US*
> Supreme Court.
Since Jeb Bush did not order the purge, not did he remove a single name from
the voting rolls. I not sure what you are talking about. Who are these
appointees that you speak of?
> I wrote that the conservative Republicans of the US Supreme Court were
> biased, so theyeither failed to recuse themselves as legally required
> (Thomas and Scalia), or broke with their own states rights position to
> overturn the ruling of a State Supreme Court (Florida) in a matter of
> the interpretation of *State* election law.
That argument fails because it would not have put Gore into the white house.
> Scalia and Thomas were both acting illegally by not recusing
> themselves. This alone was enough to change the outcome of the case
> before the US Supreme Court. All those Republican-appointed Justices of
> the US Supreme Court who had previously staked out a position in favor
> of states rights, acted in a biased and hypocritical manner, when they
> overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in a matter of State election
> law. Read the dissent - there were *no* issues of *federal* election
> law raised in the Florida case.
3 USC 5 is a federal law. The dissent is clearly wrong. They argued that the
state did not have the right make election law (granted to them by the US
Constitution) that allowed for them to take advantage of the Safe Harbor
provisions in the US Constitution.
> Nevertheless, stated advocates of
> states rights overturned a State Supreme Court ruling in a matter of
> State election law. Pure hypocrisy, resulting from party bias.
This is also false. The case was NOT about state's rights, it was about the
rights of the state legislature as spelled out by the US Constitution (Art
1, Sec 2, Cl 1).
> What happened in Florida was about what candidate one supported, and
> race. African americans were unlikely Bush supporters, so their votes
> were less likely to be cast and counted fairly.
The example that you cited in your previous post makes the case that the
Democrats did not want voters who would support Gore to vote.
> Whites were more likely
> Bush supporters, so their misread ballots were recast, unlike the at
> least 2000 such misread votes of african american voters.
Your example in the previous post was in a county where the Democrats hold
the majority. You are making the case that the Democrats were trying to
throw the election. Further, the majority of the voters in those were going
to vote for Gore no matter what race they were.
> Whites were
> also far less likely to be put on the "purge list" incorrectly.
Like in Miami-Dade? Where whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly
purged?
> This is why Jeb Bush and Harris were happy to spend so much money to
contract
> with a new private firm to increase the size of the "purge list." They
> knew that those "purged" were likely Gore voters.
Where is the proof? The USCCR could not prove this, how can you?
> >> " Of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, more than 14,600 matched
> >> a felon by name, birthdate, race and gender."
> >>
> >> Which means that even your source can't account for close to 5000 who
> >> were removed illegally. But the reality is worse still:
> >
> > The did account for them. Remember they checked all 19,398 and could
only
> > find 1,104 who were wrongfully removed.
>
> Wrong. They could only *verify* that 1,104 of the almost 5,000 who did
> *not* match "a felon by name, birthdate, race, and gender" were denied
> the right to vote illegally. That is, the Herald researchers proved to
> their satisfaction that these 1100 people, who didn't match felon
> names, etc., were definitely not former felons. That means that over
> 4,000 people were on the purge list who couldn't be matched to felons,
> and whom Herald researchers couldn't verify were removed illegally.
I don't buy this reasoning, but that doesn't matter. You still have not
defeated the 5,643 illegal votes that were cast by felons.
> But guess what - there's no legal requirement to *prove* to the Miami
> Herald that you're not a felon to vote in Florida. You can only be
> removed if the State can affirmatively show that you *are* a felon.
If you re-read the law as enacted by Gov Chiles (D), you will see this is a
false statement.
> And those 4,000 people were on the list for *no* reason, other than being
> black and/or likely Gore voters.
Where is the proof? The Democrat majority of the USCCR could not prove this,
how can you?
> Moreover, the firm doing the "purge list" subsequently admitted, under
> threat of lawsuit by the NAACP, that the purge list was far larger than
> they admitted at the time of the Herald article you cite. In fact,
> there were actually many more than 5000 people denied the right to vote.
And there were more than 5,600 who were illegally allowed to vote. It is a
wash.
> This was a systematic attempt to cut as many african americans from the
> voter lists as possible, since the Bush Campaign, chaired in Florida by
> Florida Attorney General, Katherine Harris , the same person
> responsible for overseeing the generation and application of the purge
> list - no conflict of interest there! - knew that the larger the
> number of african americans voting, the less likely Bush was to carry
> Florida.
Where is the proof??
> Then, when it looked as if a fair count would show Gore the winner,
An illegal partial recount with an illegal counting standard is not a fair
count. As I pointed out 11 Judges and Florida Campaign Chair found this to
be unfair, with 6 DEMOCRATS who wanted to throw out the rules.
Your point is not backed up with fact.
> the Republican Conservatives of the US Supreme Court acted illegally by
> failing to recuse themselves (Thomas and Scalia) or hypocritically, by
> going against their own stated position, as well as precedent, and
> reversing a State Supreme Court decision on a matter of state election
> law.
Where is the proof that this changed the election??
It is easy to make assertions that Bush did this and Harris did that, but
you have to BACK it up with FACTS.
On 2004-02-11 23:49:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> The media proved this reasoning to be false. First, there was not a full
> statewide recount. There was only a recount of the 60,000 undervoted
> ballots. That left 110,000 other disputed ballots unchecked.
No, the media were in no position to prove anything, since they could
not perform the Florida Supreme Court mandated, statewide manual
recount. That count was never completed, and media reconstructions of
what it might have been are misleading at best, for two reasons.
1. What we do know of the *actual* recount, as far as it was allowed to
proceed, is that as it progressed, Bush's lead fell. This is why the
Bush campaign appealed the Florida ruling the the SCOTUS. They saw that
a complete, statewide, manual recount would show the truth - that Gore
won Florida.
2. If the statewide manual recount had gone forward, Gore and the NAACP
would have had time to file the other actions concerning misread
ballots, the "purge list," etc. Remember, the recount was a stopgap for
Gore, and Gore supporters because of the time pressue of Florida
election law. They fully expected FBI investigation to demonstrate
widespread election irregularities, which would have made Gore's
victory even more clear.
Once the illegal SCOTUS ruling came down, these issues became moot, and
were dropped. We are therefore left with the false impression that the
hanging and pregnant chads were the only contested issue in the
election. This is very far from the truth. The real issue, election
fraud, was never heard, because the US Supreme Court acted illegally
(by allowing two Justices who should have recused themselves to sit on
the case) and handed the election to Bush before the FBI could mount an
investigation.
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
·········································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
> On 2004-02-11 23:49:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> > The media proved this reasoning to be false. First, there was not a full
> > statewide recount. There was only a recount of the 60,000 undervoted
> > ballots. That left 110,000 other disputed ballots unchecked.
>
> No, the media were in no position to prove anything, since they could
> not perform the Florida Supreme Court mandated, statewide manual
> recount. That count was never completed, and media reconstructions of
> what it might have been are misleading at best, for two reasons.
You are framing your argument around a false premise. If you read the order
from the Florida Supreme Court, you will find that is not "a complete,
statewide, manual recount ". There were 6 million ballots cast. Of those
ballots, there were more than 176,000 disputed or spoiled ballots, the order
from the FSC was to manually recount 60,000 undervoted ballots.
How can you consider a recount that does not include all of the more that
176,000 disputed ballots a "statewide" manual recount is beyond me. Further,
please explain how a partial recount that left 110,000 disputed ballots
unchecked would have proven Gore won.
> 1. What we do know of the *actual* recount, as far as it was allowed to
> proceed, is that as it progressed, Bush's lead fell. This is why the
> Bush campaign appealed the Florida ruling the the SCOTUS. They saw that
> a complete, statewide, manual recount would show the truth - that Gore
> won Florida.
Your argument is based on a false premise. There was NEVER a "complete,
statewide, manual recount" ordered by any court. Second, where is the proof
that Gore would of won a "complete, statewide, manual recount"?
> 2. If the statewide manual recount had gone forward, Gore and the NAACP
> would have had time to file the other actions concerning misread
> ballots, the "purge list," etc. Remember, the recount was a stopgap for
> Gore, and Gore supporters because of the time pressue of Florida
> election law. They fully expected FBI investigation to demonstrate
> widespread election irregularities, which would have made Gore's
> victory even more clear.
This reasoning is so far off base, I am not sure how to respond to it.
First off, at this late date, there was no time left to submit another
challenge (under Fla. Stat. 168) to Bush's certification. ALL 7 members of
the Florida Supreme Court had said on 11/21/2000, the Florida Code did NOT
allow for any challenges after the safe harbor date. There would be no way
an investation would have been completed before the safe harbor date, thus
there would not be a challenge on Bush's certification.
Second, the Florida Legislature had already convinced to elected a slate of
Bush electors, since the safe harbor date would have passed, the only thing
that Gore could do is have one of the two sets of Bush electors
disqualified. Bush only needs one set to be elected.
Third, the Democrat controlled United State Commission on Civil Rights could
not find a conspiracy to deny voters the right to vote. Where is the proof
of this conspiracy?
"Mary Frances Berry (my note, she is a Democrat), chairwoman of the
eight-member panel, said she did not know of an investigation by the U.S.
Justice Department."
"The commission has subpoena and investigatory powers but cannot apply
specific remedies. It will issue an initial report within 60 days and send
its recommendations to Congress and the president this summer, Berry said."
"She said that she doesnt believe anyone organized an effort to keep
minorities from voting, though there might have been ''invidious
discrimination.''
''I would not conclude that there has been any kind of conspiracy, or
somebody who sat down somewhere in a room and said, 'Let's keep these people
from getting to the polls,''' she said."
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011201/ele_0112010044.shtml
> Once the illegal SCOTUS ruling came down, these issues became moot, and
> were dropped. We are therefore left with the false impression that the
> hanging and pregnant chads were the only contested issue in the
> election. This is very far from the truth. The real issue, election
> fraud, was never heard, because the US Supreme Court acted illegally
> (by allowing two Justices who should have recused themselves to sit on
> the case) and handed the election to Bush before the FBI could mount an
> investigation.
Again, you are basing your argument on a false premise. You are ignoring the
fact that the Florida Legislature was in the process of electing their own
slate of electors for Bush. Once they were submitted on 12/12/2000, with all
of the protections provided by the safe harbor provisions, Bush wins. As I
pointed out before, once the FSC allowed the vote tallies, generated by an
illegal counting standard, from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties to be
included in the totals, Gore was finished.
The fact is that Gore could never win the election after 12/8/2000. It
doesn't matter if Gore would have *won* the manual recount (the recount
would have deemed as an illegal recount by congress), it doesn't matter if
Thomas and Scalia recused themselves, it doesn't matter if the FBI was
mounting an investigation, it doesn't matter if the NAACP filed a lawsuit.
Once the second set of electors were submitted, Gore loses.
You can not ignore the fact that once two sets of electors from the state of
Florida are thrown into the Congress, that the Republicans are not going to
recognize Gore electors. As Judge Sauls noted, if Gore won using the illegal
counting standards, "This legal jeopardy could potentially leave Florida
having all of its votes, in effect, disqualified, and this state being
barred from the Electoral College's election of a President." Once those
Gore electors were LEGALLY disqualified, that would have left the set of
Bush electors submitted by the Florida Legislature, thus Bush wins.
On 2004-02-12 16:44:45 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> Further,
> please explain how a partial recount that left 110,000 disputed ballots
> unchecked would have proven Gore won.
Because the recount was already progressing, to various extents in
various counties, even before the Florida Supreme Court ruling, and of
course, before the US Supreme Court ruling. As these recounts
progressed, they narrowed Bush's lead. In fact, part of the Florida
Supreme Court ruling was to include updated recounted totals that added
to the Gore tally, and narrowed Bush's margin.
Again, this is *why* Bush appealed. He knew that a recount would show
that Gore won. This is obvious, and I don't know why you keep harping
on this obvious point. If Bush had thought that a recount would
*increase* his lead, and make his win more decisive, he wouldn't have
appealed to the US Supreme Court in order to stop it. He would have
been happy, even anxious to have it go forward.
Moreover, as I mentioned already, allowing the recount to proceed would
have also provided time to file other actions about other
irregularities. The US Supreme Court mooted all these other issues by
ruling to stop the process altogether.
> The fact is that Gore could never win the election after 12/8/2000. It
> doesn't matter if Gore would have *won* the manual recount (the recount
> would have deemed as an illegal recount by congress), it doesn't matter if
> Thomas and Scalia recused themselves, it doesn't matter if the FBI was
> mounting an investigation, it doesn't matter if the NAACP filed a lawsuit.
> Once the second set of electors were submitted, Gore loses.
>
> You can not ignore the fact that once two sets of electors from the state of
> Florida are thrown into the Congress, that the Republicans are not going to
> recognize Gore electors.
If the recount went forward with the assent of the US Supreme Court,
(which would have happened if Thomas and Scalia recused themselves as
required by law), then the set of electors resulting from the recount
would be the one that Congress would have no choice but to accept. Once
the SCOTUS gives its imprimatur to a method of selecting the Florida
Electors, then the Republicans in Congress have to accept *those*
Electors. The Florida legislature is *not* the final authority on the
interpretation of existing Florida election law - the Florida Supreme
Court is.
If the Republican Congress were foolish enough to use a set of Electors
*not* based on the court mandated recount, Gore just goes back to the
US Supreme Court, which just affirms its earlier ruling that the
recount should be the basis for choosing the Florida Electors.
Most likely, without Thomas and Scalia, once the SCOTUS affirmed the
Florida Supreme court as the ultimate arbiter on matters of Florida
election law, that would effectively prevent any but the most crack
smoking of Florida legislators from thinking that they have the
constitutional right to interpret Florida election law and choose a
separate set of Electors. Florida legislators don't want to risk a
contempt of court citation from the Florida Supreme Court or the US
Supreme Court. This is what the separation of powers is about. The
courts can't write laws, and the legislature doesn't get to interpret
them - interpretation is the place of the courts.
<snip: Massive argument about the Florida Fiasco having nothing to do with LISP>
Gentlemen,
May I respectfully suggest that political arguments might be better pursued
elsewhere?
Bear
On 2004-02-13 14:11:54 -0500, Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> said:
> <snip: Massive argument about the Florida Fiasco having nothing to do
> with LISP>
>
> Gentlemen,
> May I respectfully suggest that political arguments might be better
> pursued elsewhere?
>
> Bear
Agreed - I'll stop posting to this thread. Sorry for the imposition.
raf
On 2004-02-11 23:49:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> No matter how hard you try, the FACTS are the Democrats controlled the
> elections in those counties (Gadsden and Leon). If you are going to lay
> blame, you have no choice by to blame the Democrats. You can't blame
> Republicans for the actions of Democrats.
Read what I wrote more carefully:
>> 3. Thousands of african americans, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters,
>> were either,
>> a. denied the right to vote at all, or,
>> b. had their ballots invalidated in circumstances where white
>> voters were allowed to recast their ballots and have their votes count.
>> a. was accomplished when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hired a new
>> private firm, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to illegally
>> put as many likely Gore voters on a "purge list" as possible, whether
>> they were really felons or not.
>> b. was accomplished by failing to provide voters in predominantly
>> african american counties with the opportunity to recast misread
>> ballots. This part is just simple racism operating here, not party
>> affiliation.
>>
Purge List = Republican election fraud.
Disparities in misread ballots (White v African American) = racism.
The conclusion is that white racists in Florida are both Republican
(purge list) and Democrat (disparities in misread ballots in
predominantly white v. predominantly african american counties).
The first (the "purge" list) accounted for a far larger number of
excluded african american voters, and was, in itself, much more than
the margin of the fraudulent Bush "victory." So the Republican election
fraud was, in and of itself, more than responsible for stealing the
2000 Presidential election.
>> But guess what - there's no legal requirement to *prove* to the Miami
>> Herald that you're not a felon to vote in Florida. You can only be
>> removed if the State can affirmatively show that you *are* a felon.
>
> If you re-read the law as enacted by Gov Chiles (D), you will see this is a
> false statement.
So the law requires Florida voters to prove to the Miami Herald that
they are not felons? No, the law provides for the removal of known
felons from voter rolls. *Knowingly* circulating a list containing
thousands of *legitimate* voters, for the purpose of removing these
thousands of legitimate voters from county voter lists, which is what
was done, is a violation of election laws and federal civil rights
laws. In short, circulating the purge list was election fraud.
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
·········································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
> On 2004-02-11 23:49:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> > No matter how hard you try, the FACTS are the Democrats controlled the
> > elections in those counties (Gadsden and Leon). If you are going to lay
> > blame, you have no choice by to blame the Democrats. You can't blame
> > Republicans for the actions of Democrats.
>
> Read what I wrote more carefully:
>
> >> 3. Thousands of african americans, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters,
> >> were either,
> >> a. denied the right to vote at all, or,
Unproven allegation. See the Miami Herald.
> >> b. had their ballots invalidated in circumstances where white
> >> voters were allowed to recast their ballots and have their votes count.
According to your allegations, this was done by Democrats.
> >> a. was accomplished when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hired a new
> >> private firm, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to illegally
> >> put as many likely Gore voters on a "purge list" as possible, whether
> >> they were really felons or not.
Were is the proof of the conspiracy?
From the USCCR (6 Dems, 1 Ind, and 1 Rep).
"What happened in Florida is that there was bipartisan disenfranchisement -
Democrats who were county supervisors did not do what they were supposed to
do, and neither did the governor nor the secretary of state," she said..
And
"The commission inquiry found no "conclusive evidence" that officials
"conspired" to disenfranchise minority and disabled voters, the report
said."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-05-election.htm
Florida Code requires for election supervisors to CHECK the list, that is
why the commission found that the DEMOCRATS failed to do their jobs.
"Mary Frances Berry (my note, she is a Democrat), chairwoman of the
eight-member panel, said she did not know of an investigation by the U.S.
Justice Department."
"The commission has subpoena and investigatory powers but cannot apply
specific remedies. It will issue an initial report within 60 days and send
its recommendations to Congress and the president this summer, Berry said."
"She said that she doesnt believe anyone organized an effort to keep
minorities from voting, though there might have been ''invidious
discrimination.''
''I would not conclude that there has been any kind of conspiracy, or
somebody who sat down somewhere in a room and said, 'Let's keep these people
from getting to the polls,''' she said."
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011201/ele_0112010044.shtml
IF the Democrats who lost the last election could NOT find any proof of a
conspiarcy, I would find it hard to believe that you could.
> >> b. was accomplished by failing to provide voters in predominantly
> >> african american counties with the opportunity to recast misread
> >> ballots. This part is just simple racism operating here, not party
> >> affiliation.
> >>
>
> Purge List = Republican election fraud.
Does that mean that Democrats who allowed felons illegally vote is also
fraud? Does that mean the Democrats who wrongfully removed voters were
removed voters also committed fraud?
> Disparities in misread ballots (White v African American) = racism.
24 of the top 25 counties with the largest number of spoiled ballots were
controlled by Democrats.
> The conclusion is that white racists in Florida are both Republican
> (purge list) and Democrat (disparities in misread ballots in
> predominantly white v. predominantly african american counties).
>
> The first (the "purge" list) accounted for a far larger number of
> excluded african american voters, and was, in itself, much more than
> the margin of the fraudulent Bush "victory." So the Republican election
> fraud was, in and of itself, more than responsible for stealing the
> 2000 Presidential election.
Why are you ignoring the election fraud allowed by letting felons illegally
vote? When you compare the numbers, it is a wash.
You keep bring up this argument as if it was ok for Democrat election
supervisors to allow felons to illegally vote as long as they vote for Gore.
> >> But guess what - there's no legal requirement to *prove* to the Miami
> >> Herald that you're not a felon to vote in Florida. You can only be
> >> removed if the State can affirmatively show that you *are* a felon.
> >
> > If you re-read the law as enacted by Gov Chiles (D), you will see this
is a
> > false statement.
>
> So the law requires Florida voters to prove to the Miami Herald that
> they are not felons? No, the law provides for the removal of known
> felons from voter rolls.
The law enacted by Gov. Chiles (D) was very poorly written.
> *Knowingly* circulating a list containing
> thousands of *legitimate* voters, for the purpose of removing these
> thousands of legitimate voters from county voter lists, which is what
> was done, is a violation of election laws and federal civil rights
> laws. In short, circulating the purge list was election fraud.
A Democrat election official admitted that she allowed for felons to
illegally vote. That is called election fraud.
"Mary Frances Berry (my note, she is a Democrat), chairwoman of the
eight-member panel, said she did not know of an investigation by the U.S.
Justice Department."
"The commission has subpoena and investigatory powers but cannot apply
specific remedies. It will issue an initial report within 60 days and send
its recommendations to Congress and the president this summer, Berry said."
"She said that she doesnt believe anyone organized an effort to keep
minorities from voting, though there might have been ''invidious
discrimination.''
''I would not conclude that there has been any kind of conspiracy, or
somebody who sat down somewhere in a room and said, 'Let's keep these people
from getting to the polls,''' she said."
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011201/ele_0112010044.shtml
On 2004-02-12 16:50:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> Were is the proof of the conspiracy?
Again, I *never* used the word conspiracy. Read carefully. The purge
list fraud was perpetrated by Katherine Harris, state chair of the Bush
for President campaign, most likely at the behest of Jeb Bush. She
contracted with a firm, at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers,
for the sole purpose of adding as many blacks as possible to the purge
list. Remember that voter names were matched with felon names by
*race*. I.e., John Jones, a white man, would not match the convicted
felon John Jones, if the convicted felon is black. This alone
guaranteed that many more blacks would be illegally removed from voter
rolls, since the purge list was mostly black felons, and blacks who
happened to have the same name.
No grand conspiracy theory is necessary, just the outright fraud of
issuing a known to be biased, wildly inaccurate purge list.
from:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
"Although DBT didn?t get names, birthdays or social security numbers
right, they were very careful to match for race. A black felon named
Mr. Green would only knock off a black Mr. Green, but not a single
white Mr. Green. That?s how DBT earned its $2.3 million."
>
> Florida Code requires for election supervisors to CHECK the list, that is
> why the commission found that the DEMOCRATS failed to do their jobs.
This misses the point entirely. Why not put the whole state on the
list, and require county election supervisors to check each one? At
least put blacks and whites on the list equally. No. That is *not* what
happened. The Republican administration circulated a list with
thousands of illegal disenfranchisements waiting to happen. This forced
the overstrapped county election supervisors to either trust the
Attorney General's purge list - a reasonable thing to do unless the
Attorney General is a corrupt political hack - or to not use it at all.
Those counties that did significant checks realized that the list was
horribly inaccurate, and simply didn't use it - about 30% of counties
did this.
The rest did exactly what the Republican administration expected them
to do. They used the list, as is, and disenfranchised thousands of
likely Gore voters. The Republican administration was relying on the
probability that the (largely Democratic) county election supervisors
would not suspect outright *fraud* in a State contracted voter roll
purge list. It worked.
Your use of the term "conspiracy" is a red herring attempt to divert
attention from the principal issue, which is that election fraud
occurred. The fact that it was perpetrated by just a few people in the
Republican administration and the hack firm they threw 2 million
dollars of taxpayer money at to concoct the biased list, doesn't change
the fact that it was election fraud. Election fraud is no less election
fraud if it is not a "conspiracy."
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <u11vbyz5.fsf@comcast.net>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-12 16:50:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
>> Florida Code requires for election supervisors to CHECK the list,
>> that is why the commission found that the DEMOCRATS failed to do their jobs.
> Why not put the whole state on the list, and require county election
> supervisors to check each one? At least put blacks and whites on the
> list equally.
How do you intend to do that? Statistically there are more black
felons than white ones in Florida.
--
~jrm
On 2004-02-12 19:32:46 -0500, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> said:
> How do you intend to do that? Statistically there are more black
> felons than white ones in Florida.
let me try again:
<sarcasm>
Why not put the whole state on the list, and require county election
supervisors to check each one? At least put blacks and whites on the
list equally.
</sarcasm>
The point is, by matching names by *race* only, but *not* by address,
or date of birth, or date of conviction, etc., DBT was guaranteeing
that more african americans would be illegally disenfranchised than
whites. If DBT (now part of ChoicePoint) had, for example, considered a
match of name and birth date as sufficient, then the effect on whites
would have been much greater than it was. But DBT matched only on
*race* and name (including nicknames, variants, and even name
*reversals*, so that Clay Thomas = Thomas Clay!). The result of this
policy was to guarantee a hugely disproportionate disenfranchisement of
african american voters, who were likely Gore supporters.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <1xozgj49.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-02-12 19:32:46 -0500, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> said:
>
>> How do you intend to do that? Statistically there are more black
>> felons than white ones in Florida.
>
> let me try again:
> <sarcasm>
> Why not put the whole state on the list, and require county election
> supervisors to check each one? At least put blacks and whites on the
> list equally.
> </sarcasm>
>
> The point is, by matching names by *race* only, but *not* by address,
> or date of birth, or date of conviction, etc., DBT was guaranteeing
> that more african americans would be illegally disenfranchised than
> whites.
Ah, so your solution is to raise the disenfranchisement rate across
the board?
On 2004-02-13 09:16:22 -0500, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> said:
>> The point is, by matching names by *race* only, but *not* by address,
>> or date of birth, or date of conviction, etc., DBT was guaranteeing
>> that more african americans would be illegally disenfranchised than
>> whites.
>
> Ah, so your solution is to raise the disenfranchisement rate across
> the board?
This is my last post to this thread, since we're starting to bother
others - or at the very least, we're bothering Ray Dillinger, which is
still something I'd rather not do.
No, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort - that's why I was being
<sarcastic>. I was pointing out that DBT should have matched felon
names by more than just race. They should have used address, DOB, date
of conviction, etc., not just race. If they had done so, then there
would have been essentially no disenfranchisement of voters of any
race. Instead, the race-only matching policy of DBT ensured that many
times as many african americans would be disenfranchised as whites.
raf
"Raffael Cavallaro"
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote in message
········································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom...
> On 2004-02-12 16:50:17 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> > Were is the proof of the conspiracy?
>
> Again, I *never* used the word conspiracy. Read carefully. The purge
> list fraud was perpetrated by Katherine Harris, state chair of the Bush
> for President campaign, most likely at the behest of Jeb Bush. She
> contracted with a firm, at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers,
> for the sole purpose of adding as many blacks as possible to the purge
> list. Remember that voter names were matched with felon names by
> *race*. I.e., John Jones, a white man, would not match the convicted
> felon John Jones, if the convicted felon is black. This alone
> guaranteed that many more blacks would be illegally removed from voter
> rolls, since the purge list was mostly black felons, and blacks who
> happened to have the same name.
>
> No grand conspiracy theory is necessary, just the outright fraud of
> issuing a known to be biased, wildly inaccurate purge list.
>
> from:
> http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
>
> "Although DBT didn?t get names, birthdays or social security numbers
> right, they were very careful to match for race. A black felon named
> Mr. Green would only knock off a black Mr. Green, but not a single
> white Mr. Green. That?s how DBT earned its $2.3 million."
Palast is not a reliable source. He is a left wing hack trying to sell a
book.
> > Florida Code requires for election supervisors to CHECK the list, that
is
> > why the commission found that the DEMOCRATS failed to do their jobs.
>
> This misses the point entirely. Why not put the whole state on the
> list, and require county election supervisors to check each one? At
> least put blacks and whites on the list equally. No. That is *not* what
> happened. The Republican administration circulated a list with
> thousands of illegal disenfranchisements waiting to happen. This forced
> the overstrapped county election supervisors to either trust the
> Attorney General's purge list - a reasonable thing to do unless the
> Attorney General is a corrupt political hack - or to not use it at all.
> Those counties that did significant checks realized that the list was
> horribly inaccurate, and simply didn't use it - about 30% of counties
> did this.
The Attorney General was Gore's Florida Campaign Chair. Yes, he was caught
giving bad advice, but that is a different topic.
> The rest did exactly what the Republican administration expected them
> to do. They used the list, as is, and disenfranchised thousands of
> likely Gore voters. The Republican administration was relying on the
> probability that the (largely Democratic) county election supervisors
> would not suspect outright *fraud* in a State contracted voter roll
> purge list. It worked.
Where did you come up with this? "The rest did exactly what the Republican
administration expected them
> to do. They used the list, as is....."
Here are a few examples of letters (from the USCCR) sent out by Florida
officials in 2000.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement: "The Florida Department of Law
Enforcement (FDLE) received your Voter Registration Appeal Form. After
reviewing your Florida criminal history, we have determined that you have a
Florida felony conviction in our repository. FDLE will notify your
supervisor of elections that we have data indicating that you meet the
criteria of a convicted felon."
If you got this letter, wouldn't you got to your county supervisor and get
this straightened out?
Miami-Dade County: "According to information received from the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, you have a felony conviction and have not had
your civil rights restored. Therefore, your name will be removed from the
voter registration rolls thirty (30) days from the date of this letter
unless information is received that you have not been convicted of a felony
or have had your civil rights restored."
If you got this letter, wouldn't you got to your county supervisor and get
this straightened out?
Leon County: "Your name has been submitted to our office by the Florida
Division of Elections on a list of voters who have allegedly been convicted
of a felony, but not had their right to vote restored. We do not know if
this list is accurate. Our office is required to remove you from the voter
rolls if you have been convicted of a felony and your right to vote has not
been restored."
"If you have never been convicted of a felony, we want to help you clear
this up."
If you got this letter, wouldn't you got to your county supervisor and get
this straightened out?
Okaloosa County: "We have received a list of convicted felons on which your
name appears. This list was sent to us by the state and we have been
informed it may contain errors. We are asking our voters whose names appear
on the list to please assist us with verification so that we don't
incorrectly remove any names from our rolls."
If you got this letter, wouldn't you got to your county supervisor and get
this straightened out?
Giving people a change to dispute the purge is what you consider using the
list as is?
> Your use of the term "conspiracy" is a red herring attempt to divert
> attention from the principal issue, which is that election fraud
> occurred. The fact that it was perpetrated by just a few people in the
> Republican administration and the hack firm they threw 2 million
> dollars of taxpayer money at to concoct the biased list, doesn't change
> the fact that it was election fraud. Election fraud is no less election
> fraud if it is not a "conspiracy."
A few people? For your conspiracy to be successful, you have to have 67
county election supervisors fail to follow the advice of the Division of
Elections and fail to follow Florida Code. I wouldn't call almost 70 people
a few.
Further, let's go back to what the chairperson of the Democrat controlled
United States Commission on Civil Rights said.
"What happened in Florida is that there was bipartisan disenfranchisement -
Democrats who were county supervisors did not do what they were supposed to
do, and neither did the governor nor the secretary of state," she said.
What didn't these supervisors do? In the USCCR hearing, they discussed the
memos from the Division of Elections to the county supervisors that came
down from the when this system first came about:
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."
Let me emphasis this again, "In short, if there is reasonable doubt as to
the accuracy of the information, you should allow a person to vote."
Here is a follow up to the memo:
"As a follow up to our August 11, August 14 and August 18 memorandums
regarding the central voter file, we again want to emphasize the importance
of verification of the names of the voters on the list provided for your
county, who are . . . convicted felons. . . . As we cautioned in our
previous memos, we are again recommending that you confirm this information
prior to removing any names from the registration rolls."
Why didn't the Democrats follow this memo? Do you really expect me to
believe that Harris KNEW that all of the election supervisors were IGNORE
the memos on what to do to INSURE that no one would be denied their
rights????
Again, the memo said: ""In short, if there is reasonable doubt as to the
accuracy of the information, you should allow a person to vote."
On 2004-02-12 21:23:56 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> Here are a few examples of letters (from the USCCR) sent out by Florida
> officials in 2000.
How about the United States Commission on Civil Rights *own*
conclusions about how useful such letters really were?
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/imp0602.htm
"As revealed during the 2000 presidential election, a letter is no
safeguard against registered voters being wrongfully removed from
voter lists. As discussed in the Commission's Florida report, many
supervisors of elections do not attempt to notify potentially
ineligible voters. Even when supervisors of elections send notices,
the notices often lack uniformity and do not clearly explain why the
voter is in jeopardy of being removed from the voter rolls. The
notices often fail to provide information on how the voter can
establish voter eligibility."
Why were even the letters that were sent not terribly useful? Maybe
because DBT, the firm hired to do this hatchet job, provided very
inaccurate information.
From http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html?pn=3
"Many Orange County voters never got the chance to appeal in any form.
Condrun noted that about one-third of the letters, which the county
sent out by regular mail, were returned to the office marked
undeliverable. She attributed the high rate of incorrect addresses to
the age of the information sent by DBT, some of which was close to 20
years old, she said."
Once again, you miss the real point, and attempt to drown it in
irrelevancies. The burden of proof of showing voter eligibility should
not be borne disproportionately by racial minorities. This is a clear
violation of civil rights law.
Among the other conclusions of the USCCR:
"Non-felons were purged from voter registration rolls based on
unreliable information and poor purge policies."
Now for the Media Consortium's findings based on the same data
collected by the National Opinion Research Council: (all from the same
USCCR URL given above):
". More than 175,000 ballots cast in Florida were not counted.
. Blacks, Hispanics, and older voters were significantly more likely
to have their votes rejected than whites.
. Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots
as white precincts, a disparity that remains after accounting for the
effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology.
. Counties with the most black voters had the highest rates of ballot
rejection.
. Hispanics and older voters were twice as likely as whites to have
their ballots rejected, and the disparity could not be explained by
technology and education differences."
Among the groups in question, support for Gore was much more
prevalent. With 175,000 voters, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters, the
tiny margin of Bush's "victory" would have been obliterated many times
over.
Which, again, reveals the pattern that Palast, and others, have been
reporting on since only *days* after the election - those most likely
to vote for Gore - racial minorities and older voters - were most
likely to not have their votes counted. Part of this is racism - note
that the effect is still there even when controlling for "income,
education, ballot design, or voting technology." The other part, is
the systematically anti Gore purge list, whose makers, DBT, have said
that the Attorney General's office (i.e., Katherine Harris's office)
"wanted there to be more names than were actually verified," even
though DBT warned officials "a significant number of people who were
not a felon would be included on the list."
Look at the pervasive pattern that your own authority, the USCCCR
found - voters likely to vote for Gore were more likely to not have
their vote count. This was due to one of two reasons:
a. Racism, or
b. the "purge list," known to be wildly inaccurate, sent out by the
Bush campaign's own Florida Chairwoman!
"Raffael Cavallaro" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> On 2004-02-12 21:23:56 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> > Here are a few examples of letters (from the USCCR) sent out by Florida
> > officials in 2000.
>
> How about the United States Commission on Civil Rights *own*
> conclusions about how useful such letters really were?
Yes, they didn't think it was enough. Maybe not, but this fact defeats your
point that the counties supervisors "....used the list, as is,...". The
evidence provided to the Commission proves otherwise.
> http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/imp0602.htm
>
> "As revealed during the 2000 presidential election, a letter is no
> safeguard against registered voters being wrongfully removed from
> voter lists. As discussed in the Commission's Florida report, many
> supervisors of elections do not attempt to notify potentially
> ineligible voters. Even when supervisors of elections send notices,
> the notices often lack uniformity and do not clearly explain why the
> voter is in jeopardy of being removed from the voter rolls. The
> notices often fail to provide information on how the voter can
> establish voter eligibility."
>
> Why were even the letters that were sent not terribly useful? Maybe
> because DBT, the firm hired to do this hatchet job, provided very
> inaccurate information.
> From
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html?pn=3
>
> "Many Orange County voters never got the chance to appeal in any form.
> Condrun noted that about one-third of the letters, which the county
> sent out by regular mail, were returned to the office marked
> undeliverable. She attributed the high rate of incorrect addresses to
> the age of the information sent by DBT, some of which was close to 20
> years old, she said."
>
> Once again, you miss the real point, and attempt to drown it in
> irrelevancies. The burden of proof of showing voter eligibility should
> not be borne disproportionately by racial minorities. This is a clear
> violation of civil rights law.
Actually, the burden of proof should not be placed on ANY voter. The fact is
the law (enacted under a Democrat Governor) was badly written, but that
still does not let the counties off the hook, nor does it prove the Harris
was out to make sure the Gore supporters were not allow to vote as to give
Bush the edge.
The numbers alone disprove this point. Gore lead in the Florida polls by as
much as 4 points. That translates into nearly 250,000 votes, yet we are to
believe that Harris cooked up a scheme that would give Bush the election
because of 1,100 voters? I really have a hard time believing the Harris KNEW
that the election was going to be decided by 537 votes, and that she
believed that all of the counties would ignore all of the warnings that had
been issued on the purge list, and blindly remove voters.
The other point that I don't get is, that from the beginning, the Division
Elections warned counties about the list. How can you fool county election
supervisors who have been WARNED that the list is not 100% accurate? In
other words, the counties were told the list was not 100% accurate, and now
the counties are off the hook because they "trusted" a list that they KNEW
would not be accurate??? I don't buy it.
"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the first
of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first experience
with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
accurate list."
This was with the FORMER company that she is talking about. She went on to
release this memo:
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."
What I don't understand is why all of a sudden that these warning were
ignored by the counties? EVERYBODY in the election system knew 1) not to
100% trust the list. 2) That if you are unsure, do not remove the voter. 3)
That if there is a question of accuracy, allow the person to vote. Harris
did not REMOVE these warnings, thus each county KNEW the list would not be
accurate. To say that Harris was trying to fool these supervisors after all
of these warnings does not hold up.
When you have a policy that had been in effect for 2 years, and the counties
IGNORE it, I fail to see how you can blame Harris for their failures. Again,
as the USCCR said, the Democrats FAILED to do their jobs.
> Among the other conclusions of the USCCR:
> "Non-felons were purged from voter registration rolls based on
> unreliable information and poor purge policies."
>
> Now for the Media Consortium's findings based on the same data
> collected by the National Opinion Research Council: (all from the same
> USCCR URL given above):
>
> ". More than 175,000 ballots cast in Florida were not counted.
> . Blacks, Hispanics, and older voters were significantly more likely
> to have their votes rejected than whites.
> . Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots
> as white precincts, a disparity that remains after accounting for the
> effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology.
> . Counties with the most black voters had the highest rates of ballot
> rejection.
> . Hispanics and older voters were twice as likely as whites to have
> their ballots rejected, and the disparity could not be explained by
> technology and education differences."
>
> Among the groups in question, support for Gore was much more
> prevalent. With 175,000 voters, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters, the
> tiny margin of Bush's "victory" would have been obliterated many times
> over.
First, Gore did NOT want to recount all of these votes. In fact, using your
logic, apparently he didn't think those votes would have put him into the
white house, otherwise, he would have challenged ALL of those ballots.
The record shows that Gore was trying to make sure that those votes were NOT
counted. In fact, he fought all the way to the Florida Supreme Court saying
that he was NOT required to challenge all of those ballots.
Judge Sauls wrote (discussing Fladell vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board) in Gore vs. Harris (12/03/2000) Link:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-2431_transcript.pdf
"......Section 102.168 provides in Subsection(1) that the certification of
elections may be contested for presidential elections. Section 103.011
provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as elected the
presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who
receive the highest number of votes." There is in this type of election, one
statewide election, and one certification. Palm Beach County did not elect
any person as a presidential elector, but, rather, the election with the
winner-take-all proposition, dependent on the statewide vote."
Sauls told Gore that he must ask for a full recount.
In the hearing before the FSC on 12/7/2000, Boies argued that Judge Sauls
had made an ERROR when he said that a recount would have to be STATEWIDE.
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.htm
"Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its conclusion
on three errors of law:
"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is no
support for it in this or any other state."
Further, the media recounts did not find these 175,000 disputed ballots
would have "obliterated" Bush's lead several times over. They found that the
recount as ordered by the FSC would have EXTENDED Bush's lead.
> Which, again, reveals the pattern that Palast, and others, have been
> reporting on since only *days* after the election - those most likely
> to vote for Gore - racial minorities and older voters - were most
> likely to not have their votes counted. Part of this is racism - note
> that the effect is still there even when controlling for "income,
> education, ballot design, or voting technology."
24 of the 25 top counties with the highest rate of spoiled ballots were
controlled by Democrats (the other had no party affiation). This is NOT the
fault of Bush, or Harris.
The dissent of the USCCR asked:
".......Those who charge that African Americans were "disenfranchised" in
Florida have never asked why it is that no one raised this issue before the
election. If punch card balloting, for instance, has a racially
discriminatory effect, why had not the NAACP, the Urban League, or any other
organization belonging to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ever
uttered a peep about it before November 2000? If civil rights leaders had
understood that different voting systems are conducive to different rates of
voter error, and that some can serve to disadvantage groups with below
average literacy skills, why didn't they raise the issue publicly and demand
electoral reforms? If they did not grasp this fact, it is hard to see why we
should assume that public officials did."
I want to know if these Democrats County Election Supervisors KNEW these
machines were biased, why did they use them?? They made the choice, not Bush
or Harris.
> The other part, is
> the systematically anti Gore purge list, whose makers, DBT, have said
> that the Attorney General's office (i.e., Katherine Harris's office)
> "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified," even
> though DBT warned officials "a significant number of people who were
> not a felon would be included on the list."
The Attorney General was not Katherine Harris, it was Bob Butterworth (D).
Second, ALL of the counties had been warned. Why they failed to do their
jobs is beyond me.
> Look at the pervasive pattern that your own authority, the USCCCR
> found - voters likely to vote for Gore were more likely to not have
> their vote count. This was due to one of two reasons:
> a. Racism, or
> b. the "purge list," known to be wildly inaccurate, sent out by the
> Bush campaign's own Florida Chairwoman!
Democrats were the main culprits here (picking the voting machines, not
allowing the recasting of spoiled ballots, not following the policies set up
by the Division of Elections), yet you ignore this fact and blame Harris and
Bush. The evidence doesn't not support your theory.
On 2004-02-13 11:24:43 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
>
> Actually, the burden of proof should not be placed on ANY voter. The fact is
> the law (enacted under a Democrat Governor) was badly written, but that
> still does not let the counties off the hook, nor does it prove the Harris
> was out to make sure the Gore supporters were not allow to vote as to give
> Bush the edge.
You overanalyse again. All anyone could really know was the race was
going to be close. Just how close, no one really knew in advance. But
in a close race, every little bit helps. That includes removing as many
felons (real felons, not mistaken felons) from the voter lists as
possible, since they are far more likely to vote Democratic. When DBT
informed the state that the lists were very flawed, and would include
numerous voters who should not be removed, Katherine Harris had a
choice. She could tell DBT to clean up the list - after all DBT had
access to over a thousand different databases of various sorts from
across the US, which could have been used to cross reference the purge
list and correct it, and the state was paying DBT 2 million dollars for
the list, so the AG's office had a legitimate claim to order DBT to do
the job right. Or, she could tell them to send it along, as it was
flaws and all. She chose the latter because she knew that it would
maximize the number of voters who were removed from the rolls, and that
because of DBT's methodology of matching *only* by race, that those
removed wrongfully would likely be african americans - predominantly
Gore voters. She chose to approve a list she *knew* would lead to the
disenfranchisement of thousands of african american voters.
Did she know that the race would be decided by 500 odd votes? Of course
not. But she was the Florida state chair of the Bush for President
campaign, at the same time she was signing off on the list, and she
knew would be circulated, and used to remove voters from the rolls.
Could she rely on all counties to use the list *as is*? Of course not.
Some would check it. But others would not. In fact, 70% of counties
used it. Of those that used it, some sent out letters, some did not. Of
those that sent out letters, some were helpful to voters trying to
reinstate themselves, others were not. Many letters never reached their
intended recipients at all.
Could she rely on the flaws in the system to ensure that many voters
would be struck from the rolls and not be reinstated in time to vote?
Absolutely. This is called passive fraud, and it is illegal. And that's
exactly what happened - she approved a list that she *knew* had
thousands of votes who should not be on it. And she relied on the flaws
in the system to ensure that many of these black voters would not be
reinstated in time to vote.
Also remember in this context that DBT's matching by race only makes
this state action one based on a suspect class, and thus makes the
standard of proof for a civil rights action one of discriminatory
*impact* which there most definitely was.
>
> I want to know if these Democrats County Election Supervisors KNEW these
> machines were biased, why did they use them?? They made the choice, not Bush
> or Harris.
Again, you fail to read the USCCR's own web page, which I have already
cited, and effectively underscored:
" . Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots
as white precincts, a disparity that remains after accounting for the
effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology."
Read that again: "a disparity that remains after accounting for the
effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology." So
the machines were *not* the cause of bias - the race of the people
voting was. If they were black, their misread ballots were just thrown
away. If they were white, they got to recast their ballots.
On 2004-02-13 14:11:54 -0500, Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> said:
> <snip: Massive argument about the Florida Fiasco having nothing to do
> with LISP>
>
> Gentlemen,
> May I respectfully suggest that political arguments might be better
> pursued elsewhere?
>
> Bear
Agreed - I'll stop posting to this thread. Sorry for the imposition.
raf
On 2004-02-12 21:23:56 -0500, "Mark Cook" <·····@prodigy.net> said:
> Here are a few examples of letters (from the USCCR) sent out by Florida
> officials in 2000.
How about the United States Commission on Civil Rights *own*
conclusions about how useful such letters really were?
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/imp0602.htm
"As revealed during the 2000 presidential election, a letter is no
safeguard against registered voters being wrongfully removed from voter
lists. As discussed in the Commission?s Florida report, many
supervisors of elections do not attempt to notify potentially
ineligible voters. Even when supervisors of elections send notices, the
notices often lack uniformity and do not clearly explain why the voter
is in jeopardy of being removed from the voter rolls. The notices often
fail to provide information on how the voter can establish voter
eligibility."
Why are even the letters that are sent not terribly useful? Maybe
because DBT, the firm hired to do this hatchet job, provided very
inaccurate information.
From
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html?pn=3
:
"Many Orange County voters never got the chance to appeal in any form.
Condrun noted that about one-third of the letters, which the county
sent out by regular mail, were returned to the office marked
undeliverable. She attributed the high rate of incorrect addresses to
the age of the information sent by DBT, some of which was close to 20
years old, she said."
Once again, you miss the real point, and attempt to drown it in
irrelevancies. The burden of proof of showing voter eligibility should
not be borne disproportionately by racial minorities. This is a clear
violation of civil rights law.
Among the other conclusions of the USCCR:
"Non-felons were purged from voter registration rolls based on
unreliable information and poor purge policies."
Now for the Media Consortium's findings based on the same data
collected by the National Opinion Research Council: (all from the same
USCCR URL given above):
"? More than 175,000 ballots cast in Florida were not counted.
? Blacks, Hispanics, and older voters were significantly more likely
to have their votes rejected than whites.
?Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as
white precincts, a disparity that remains after accounting for the
effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology.
?Counties with the most black voters had the highest rates of ballot
rejection.
?Hispanics and older voters were twice as likely as whites to have
their ballots rejected, and the disparity could not be explained by
technology and education differences."
Among the groups in question, support for Gore was much more prevalent.
With 175,000 voters, overwhelmingly likely Gore voters, the tiny margin
of Bush's "victory" would have been obliterated many times over.
Which, again, reveals the pattern that Palast, and others, have been
reporting on since only *days* after the election - those most likely
to vote for Gore - racial minorities and older voters - were most
likely to not have their votes counted. Part of this is racism - note
that the effect is still there even when controlling for "income,
education, ballot design, or voting technology." The other part, is the
systematically anti Gore purge list, whose makers, DBT, have said that
the Attorney General's office (i.e., Katherine Harris's office) "wanted
there to be more names than were actually verified," even though DBT
warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon
would be included on the list."
Look at the pervasive pattern that your own authority, the USCCCR found
- voters likely to vote for Gore were more likely to not have their
vote count. This was due to one of two reasons:
a. Racism, or
b. the "purge list," known to be wildly inaccurate, sent out by the
Bush campaign's own Florida Chairwoman!
On 2004-02-13 00:52:32 -0500, Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> said:
> "? More than 175,000 ballots cast in Florida were not counted.
> ? Blacks, Hispanics, and older voters were significantly more likely
> to have their votes rejected than whites.
> ?Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as
> white precincts, a disparity that remains after accounting for the
> effects of income, education, ballot design, or voting technology.
> ?Counties with the most black voters had the highest rates of ballot
> rejection.
> ?Hispanics and older voters were twice as likely as whites to have
> their ballots rejected, and the disparity could not be explained by
> technology and education differences."
Just to be clear, for some reason all of the above lines are prefaced
with a question mark in my newsreader. These should all be bullets, not
question marks - I'm not questioning any of these conclusions of the
Media Consortium's based on the data collected by the National Opinion
Research Council.
raf
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <c1rntj$fqj$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <······································@netnews.comcast.net>,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> wrote:
>
...
>
>
>[1] The State of Florida, under Jeb Bush, George's brother, illegally
>disqualified thousands of voters, mostly african americans,
>statistically much more likely to vote for Gore, for comitting felonies
>*in the future*!!! That's right - thousands of voters were removed from
>the voter rolls for having felony convictions *after* the year 2000.
>Needless to say this was just a "mistake," but one that conveniently
>prevented predominantly Gore supporters from voting. Tens of thousands
>of african americans were prevented from voting by this and other means.
>This pattern of voter disqualifications was not a coincidence.
>
>See _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons,
>Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters_
>by Greg Palast
Actually, Jeb and Katherine (Harris) & co disenfranchised 97,000
florida voters, only 4,000 of which were *actually* felons.
That book covers *several* investigations done by Greg Palast
(www.gregpalast.org -- many articles there, published in
UK "Guardian" newspaper, shown on BBC tv (but not, I believe,
on BBC shown here in USA), subject-matter known all over the
world *except* here in the US) eg far more on the Exxon Valdez
(what we learned here was only half the story), etc
Hell, get the book (paperback, ie 2nd edition) and *tear out
and toss-away the florida-election chapter* -- if you're
that wedded to GW and family -- there's plenty more in the
book *un*-related to bushes, really a good read on stuff
you had no idea about.
David
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: PLEASE IGNORE THAT ONE! All screwed up, multi-duplicated text, ...
Date:
Message-ID: <c1rti5$hc5$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <············@reader2.panix.com>,
David Combs <·······@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <······································@netnews.comcast.net>,
>Raffael Cavallaro <················@junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> wrote:
>>
>...
>>
>>
>>[1] The State of Florida, under Jeb Bush, George's brother, illegally
>>disqualified thousands of voters, mostly african americans,
SNIP
>book *un*-related to bushes, really a good read on stuff
>you had no idea about.
>
>David
>
At least that's what Palast himself says (I was
at a wbai "party" for him last night, and yet
again he said it.)
David
From: David Combs
Subject: FYI: CHOMSKY on cspan-2 this weekend. Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <c024m0$ar$1@reader2.panix.com>
This GNU CLISP thread has already sprouted in so many directions,
might as well have one more:
Chomsky is on cspan2, on its weekly weekend-long 48hrs
of "booktv" (www.booktv.org), of non-fiction books,
each author getting about an hour to talk about his/her
book, and then answer questions.
Chomsky will be on, about his new book, "Hegemony or Survival:
America's quest for global dominance", TWICE, both times
on Saturday: noon, and then repeated at 9:20pm.
Hey, why don't I just show you the weekend's schedule -- maybe
it'll attract at least some of you enough that *you*
will start visiting www.booktv.org each friday to see what's up.
Enjoy
David
----------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
BOOK TV Schedule
[2]Triangle View complete 5th Anniversary Schedule
[3][(1)__Pick a Week..........] [4]O.K.
Note: Program start times are approximate and all times are Eastern.
Saturday, February 7
ET
Programs
8:00 am [5]2003 Miami Book Fair: Augusten Burroughs and Neal Pollack
8:45 [6]Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
10:00 [7]Curtis White, The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for
Themselves
11:00 [8]Oliver Sacks, Vintage Sacks
12:00 pm [9]Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for
Global Dominance
1:45 [10]Daniel Pipes, Miniatures: Views of Islamic and Middle
Eastern Politics
3:00 [11]David Levering Lewis & Deborah Willis, A Small Nation of
People: W.E.B. Du Bois & African American Portraits of Progress
4:00 [12]W. Elliot Brownlee & Hugh Davis Graham, eds., The Reagan
Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism & Its Legacies
5:00 [13]Jorge Ramos, No Borders: A Journalist's Search for Home
6:00 [14]Rita Katz, Terrorist Hunter
7:00 Encore Booknotes: [15]Hugh Price, Achievement Matters: Getting
Your Child the Best Education Possible
8:00 Public Lives: [16]Bruce Caldwell, Alan Ebenstein, Hayek's
Challenge & Hayek's Journey
9:20 [17]Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for
Global Dominance
11:00 History on Book TV: [18]Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy
Sunday, February 8
ET
Programs
12:00 am [19]David Horowitz, Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey
1:15 [20]2003 Texas Book Festival: Scott Turow, Ultimate Punishment
2:00 [21]John Prados, William Hood, Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of
CIA Director William Colby & A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the
Central Intelligence Agency
4:00 [22]Joyce Carol Thomas, Linda Brown, You Are Not Alone
5:00 [23]James McPherson, The Ilustrated Battle Cry of Freedom: The
Civil War Era
5:45 [24]Celia Sandys & Winston S. Churchill, Chasing Churchill &
Never Give In
7:00 [25]Mark Arax, Rick Wartzman, The King of California: J.G.
Boswell and the Making of a Secret American Empire
8:30 [26]Jeffrey Rosen, The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and
Freedom in an Anxious Age
9:30 [27]Jack Lynch, ed., Samuel Johnson's Dictionary: Selections
from the 1755 Work That Defined the English Language
10:30 [28]Lynne Cheney, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing
American Women
11:00 Encore Booknotes: [29]Hugh Price, Achievement Matters: Getting
Your Child the Best Education Possible
12:00 pm [30]David Kirp, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line:
The Marketing of Higher Education
1:00 [31]Jack Lynch, ed., Samuel Johnson's Dictionary: Selections
from the 1755 Work That Defined the English Language
2:00 [32]2003 Miami Book Fair: Thomas Cahill
3:00 [33]Stephen Mansfield, The Faith of George W. Bush
3:45 [34]Franklin Toker, Fallingwater Rising: Frank Lloyd Wright,
E.J. Kaufmann, and America's Most Extraordinary House
4:45 [35]Joseph Ellis, Annette Gordon-Reed, David Levering Lewis,
John Lukacs, Robert Remini, Lynn Hudson Parsons, AHA Biography and
History Panel
6:45 [36]Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans
8:00 History on Book TV: [37]Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy
[For 8pm, you have to CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE TWO:]
[The one above, as with everything ELSE on this schedule, is on
"CSPAN-2" -- EXCEPT for "BOOKNOTES", just below.]
8:00 [BOOKNOTES: NOTE: it's on CSPAN "1"]:
"The Collected Poetry of Nikki Giovanni: 1968-1998", by Nikki Giovanni
9:00 [38]Southern Festival of Books 2003 - John Fountain, "True Vine"
9:45 [39]Irshad Manji, The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for
Reform in Her Faith
[For 11pm, you have to CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE TWO:]
[The one above, as with everything ELSE on this schedule, is on
"CSPAN-2" -- EXCEPT for "BOOKNOTES", just below.]
11:00 Public Lives: [40]Bruce Caldwell, Alan Ebenstein, Hayek's
Challenge & Hayek's Journey
[The one above, as with everything ELSE on this schedule, is on
"CSPAN-2" -- EXCEPT for "BOOKNOTES", just below.]
11:00 [BOOKNOTES: NOTE: it's on CSPAN "1"]:
"The Collected Poetry of Nikki Giovanni: 1968-1998", by Nikki Giovanni
Monday, February 9
ET
Programs
12:30 am [41]Chris Corbett, Orphans Preferred: the Twisted Truth and
lasting Legend of the Pony Express
1:35 [42]Ellie Matthews, Gay Salisbury, Richard Corfield, Northwest
Bookfest: Beyond Shackleton
2:30 [43]Robert Katz, The Battle for Rome
4:00 [44]Sally Ride, Exploring Our Solar System
5:00 [45]Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment
6:00 [46]Rodney Carlisle, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Spies and
Espionage
6:45 [47]Irshad Manji, The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for
Reform in Her Faith
_____________________________________________________________________
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> No. First, you should make a persuasive case that Raffael needs to
> make a persuasive case that state-sponsored schools are an effective
> means of educating the populace. Why should schools become
> ineffective merely because the state is paying for them?
Since government-run schools are coercive both in their funding and in
their attendance policies, I would think the onus would be on the
advocates of this system to prove that it is effective, and that the
sacrifice of liberty involved is worth it. It's pretty clear that in
the US at least government-run education originated as a tool for
control and for producing a homogeneous society.
I find it somewhat surprising that people who say they desire a free
society are nevertheless willing to advocate government-run education
as not just a necessary evil (to make sure the poor are educated) but
as a cornerstone of that free society. Government-run education is a
proto-totalitarian institution.
BTW, I believe that education is a human right. I believe that nobody
should be allowed to prevent someone else from learning everything his
inclination, means and ability permit him to learn. (Note that by
"his" and "him" I mean any human being, including female human
beings.) OTOH I don't believe that anyone has a right to force
another to educate him, either directly or indirectly.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
[My tutors] got bored sooner than I, and laid down a general rule
that all statements about languages had to be in a higher level
language. I thereupon asked in what level of language that rule was
formulated. I got a very bad report. -- J. R. Lucas
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> No. First, you should make a persuasive case that Raffael needs to
>> make a persuasive case that state-sponsored schools are an effective
>> means of educating the populace. Why should schools become
>> ineffective merely because the state is paying for them?
>
> Since government-run schools are coercive both in their funding and in
> their attendance policies, I would think the onus would be on the
> advocates of this system to prove that it is effective, and that the
> sacrifice of liberty involved is worth it. It's pretty clear that in
> the US at least government-run education originated as a tool for
> control and for producing a homogeneous society.
Their coerciveness is neither here nor there in determining
whether they're effective. I think it's about as obvious as
anything can be that they are somewhat effective in providing
education. Yes, it's possible to argue at length about whether
the cost is worth the benefit, but that's a separate issue and
not one I want to get into here.
> I find it somewhat surprising that people who say they desire a free
> society are nevertheless willing to advocate government-run education
> as not just a necessary evil (to make sure the poor are educated) but
> as a cornerstone of that free society. Government-run education is a
> proto-totalitarian institution.
The empirical evidence, such as it is, does not suggest that
having government-run education particularly correlates with
the growth of totalitarianism. (At least, such is my impression;
perhaps I'm dead wrong, and I'd be very interested in any
statistics that make the issue clear one way or the other.)
The ideal would be a system that ensures that everyone can
be well educated without enabling the government to decide
what is to be taught. I don't know of any such system.
> BTW, I believe that education is a human right. I believe that nobody
> should be allowed to prevent someone else from learning everything his
> inclination, means and ability permit him to learn. (Note that by
> "his" and "him" I mean any human being, including female human
> beings.) OTOH I don't believe that anyone has a right to force
> another to educate him, either directly or indirectly.
I don't think a "human right" is worth diddlysquat if there isn't
some effort made to ensure that everyone who wants or needs it
gets it. A "human right" expressed as "no one should be allowed
to stop someone getting X *if they have the means to get it*" is
pretty much worthless, because then it's not a "human right"
but a "wealthy person's right".
Imagine there's a colony on the moon, and I get control of the
air supply. There's no shortage of air; I could give everyone
all they need with no danger, and at minimal cost and effort
to myself. Instead, I sell air at a cost of $1M for a supply
enough to last one person a year. Thousands die. But it's not
my fault, right?, because I'm making the air available to everyone
with the means to get it. If some paupers are unable to afford
what I'm charging, that's just too bad, right?, and no one has
the right to force me to give away my precious air if I don't
want to.
I bet you don't actually agree with the sentiments expressed
in that paragraph. Neither do I. My reason is that I think
there's some sort of right to life (though I don't much care
for such language), which goes further than just saying that
it's wrong to murder people. It seems to me that your "right
to education" is analogous to the right not to be murdered.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <oet8ahyd.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Their coerciveness is neither here nor there in determining
> whether they're effective. I think it's about as obvious as
> anything can be that they are somewhat effective in providing
> education.
It is not obvious to me that they are more effective than nothing at
all. Human beings, especially children, have a natural inclination to
learn, and parents have a natural inclination to teach.
Government-sponsored mass education may simply be `effective' because
it is orthogonal to actual learning.
To phrase it another way, since no one going to public school is
naked, is it therefore obvious that public schools are an effective
means of clothing children?
> Yes, it's possible to argue at length about whether the cost is
> worth the benefit, but that's a separate issue and not one I want to
> get into here.
There are two costs: the monetary cost involved in maintaining a
school infrastructure, and the cost of any detrimental effect of
government-run schools. I can see not wanting to discuss the former,
but the latter is an integral part of the discussion. As an analogy,
there is no doubt a benefit to amputating the right arm of every
individual in the country: it would save a certain number of people
from cancer. But is the cost to doing this a separate issue?
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
[I said, concerning schools:]
>> Their coerciveness is neither here nor there in determining
>> whether they're effective. I think it's about as obvious as
>> anything can be that they are somewhat effective in providing
>> education.
[Joe:]
> It is not obvious to me that they are more effective than nothing at
> all. Human beings, especially children, have a natural inclination to
> learn, and parents have a natural inclination to teach.
> Government-sponsored mass education may simply be `effective' because
> it is orthogonal to actual learning.
The alternative, of course, is not "nothing at all" but
self-education plus education by parents. In families
where both parents need to work more or less full-time
in order for the family not to starve (which is to say,
in precisely the families that stand to benefit most
from state-funded schooling, if it is in fact effective),
the time available for parents to educate the children
is limited. Indeed, the time available for them to take
care of the children is limited; even if all schools did
were to keep children in reasonably safe hands while
their parents worked, that would be a valuable service.
I concede that it is *possible* that schooling is
less effective than "nothing at all" (i.e., self-education
and education by parents) even for children whose parents
have to work full-time and whose homes have little in the
way of educational books, internet connections, and the
like. I don't see why I should take that possibility
any more seriously than, say, the possibility that if
we abolished money then people would immediately start
to share their possessions in pursuit of the common good.
> To phrase it another way, since no one going to public school is
> naked, is it therefore obvious that public schools are an effective
> means of clothing children?
No, because public schools are not attempting to clothe children
and are not doing anything that one might expect to have the
effect of clothing them. They are, however, attempting to
educate children, and they are doing things that one might
expect to have that effect, such as telling them facts, and
setting them problems to solve that stretch their understanding,
and providing them with textbooks. There's no reason to expect
that to be optimal, but it's scarcely credible to me that it
has no effect.
>> Yes, it's possible to argue at length about whether the cost is
>> worth the benefit, but that's a separate issue and not one I want to
>> get into here.
>
> There are two costs: the monetary cost involved in maintaining a
> school infrastructure, and the cost of any detrimental effect of
> government-run schools. I can see not wanting to discuss the former,
> but the latter is an integral part of the discussion. As an analogy,
> there is no doubt a benefit to amputating the right arm of every
> individual in the country: it would save a certain number of people
> from cancer. But is the cost to doing this a separate issue?
I agree that certain detrimental effects are relevant to this
discussion; specifically, any such effects that work by impairing
the children's education. So, for instance, if state-funded
schools teach history in a distorted way that promotes the
views of those in power, that would be a relevant cost. If you
had that sort of thing in mind, then I apologize: I didn't mean
to imply that such costs are not relevant.
Some other detrimental effects, while doubtless interesting and
important, are not relevant here. (I don't think we're seriously
trying to decide definitively whether state-funded schooling is
a good thing or not.) For instance, if keeping children away from
home has bad psychological effects on the parents, then that would
be interesting, but I don't think we need to discuss it.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <n08s8wlp.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> No, because public schools are not attempting to clothe children
> and are not doing anything that one might expect to have the
> effect of clothing them. They are, however, attempting to
> educate children, and they are doing things that one might
> expect to have that effect, such as telling them facts, and
> setting them problems to solve that stretch their understanding,
> and providing them with textbooks. There's no reason to expect
> that to be optimal, but it's scarcely credible to me that it
> has no effect.
It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
education. Many people here would agree that textbooks that teach
creationism (and they exist and are used by some schools!) are *worse*
than no textbooks at all. Telling children `facts' that are patently false,
for instance,
``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
and ice.''
``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
telescope.''
(I bet you've been told these!)
What about math texts that ask:
``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
(Connected Math Project)
or state
``To become skillful at handling situations that call for the
addition and subtraction of fractions, you need a good plan for
carrying out your computations. In mathematics, a plan -- or a
series of steps -- for doing a computation is called an
algorithm. For an algorithm to be useful, each step should be clear
and precise so that other people will be able to carry out the
steps and get correct answers.''
--
~jrm
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <oet88wn7.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> No, because public schools are not attempting to clothe children
> and are not doing anything that one might expect to have the
> effect of clothing them. They are, however, attempting to
> educate children, and they are doing things that one might
> expect to have that effect, such as telling them facts, and
> setting them problems to solve that stretch their understanding,
> and providing them with textbooks. There's no reason to expect
> that to be optimal, but it's scarcely credible to me that it
> has no effect.
It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
education. Many people here would agree that textbooks that teach
creationism (and they exist and are used by some schools!) are *worse*
than no textbooks at all. Telling children `facts' that are patently false,
for instance,
``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
and ice.''
``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
telescope.''
(I bet you've been told these!)
What about math texts that ask:
``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
(Connected Math Project)
or state
``To become skillful at handling situations that call for the
addition and subtraction of fractions, you need a good plan for
carrying out your computations. In mathematics, a plan -- or a
series of steps -- for doing a computation is called an
algorithm. For an algorithm to be useful, each step should be clear
and precise so that other people will be able to carry out the
steps and get correct answers.''
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
> education. Many people here would agree that textbooks that teach
> creationism (and they exist and are used by some schools!) are *worse*
> than no textbooks at all. Telling children `facts' that are patently false,
> for instance,
>
> ``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
> cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
>
> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
> and ice.''
>
> ``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
> telescope.''
>
> (I bet you've been told these!)
>
> What about math texts that ask:
>
> ``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
> (Connected Math Project)
>
> or state
> ``To become skillful at handling situations that call for the
> addition and subtraction of fractions, you need a good plan for
> carrying out your computations. In mathematics, a plan -- or a
> series of steps -- for doing a computation is called an
> algorithm. For an algorithm to be useful, each step should be clear
> and precise so that other people will be able to carry out the
> steps and get correct answers.''
So, please, regale us with the Correct Information.
Gregm
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <d69o8kob.fsf@comcast.net>
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
> So, please, regale us with the Correct Information.
> Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> ``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
>> cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
See:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html
The air has nothing to do with it, it is the relative rate of
condensation to evaporation which depends on the partial pressure of
the water vapor. As John Dalton showed in 1802, the pressure of a gas
is independent of the amount of other gasses present.
>> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
>> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
>> and ice.''
It takes about 121 atmospheres of pressure to lower the melting point
of ice by one degree. A skater can (optimistically) provide about 12
atmospheres of pressure under his or her blades, thus lowering the
melting point by about 1/10th of a degree. Yet one can still skate at
temperatures far below -.1 C.
The fact is, no one knows how ice skates actually work. It probably
has something to do with surface melting.
>> ``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
>> telescope.''
Galileo's blindness was from glaucoma and cataracts associated with
old age. He initially made his solar observations near sunrise and
sunset, but changed to a projection method later on (he was no idiot).
>> (I bet you've been told these!)
>>
>> What about math texts that ask:
>>
>> ``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
>> (Connected Math Project)
The `answer' from the CMP teacher's manual is slope=1, intercept = -2.5
But 10 = x - 2.5 is a perfectly valid equation for a vertical line.
The slope is infinite and there is no intercept.
>> or state
>> ``To become skillful at handling situations that call for the
>> addition and subtraction of fractions, you need a good plan for
>> carrying out your computations. In mathematics, a plan -- or a
>> series of steps -- for doing a computation is called an
>> algorithm. For an algorithm to be useful, each step should be clear
>> and precise so that other people will be able to carry out the
>> steps and get correct answers.''
This definition admits such things as
``Ask all students in the class and average their answers.''
``Roll some dice and see if the answer comes up. Repeat until it
does.''
What about correctness? What about finite number of steps? What
about the mathematical relation between steps?
I like this definition:
From
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~hgreenbe/glossary/A.html
``Algorithm. An iterative method that generates a sequence of the
form x^(k+1) = S_k(A_k(x^k)), where x^0 is given (called the initial
point); A_k is an algorithm map that yields a set of policies, given
the current point, x^k; and S_k is a selection function (in case A_k
has more than one policy in it). Note that the algorithm map and
selection function can depend on the iteration number (k).''
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
[I said:]
>> No, because public schools are not attempting to clothe children
>> and are not doing anything that one might expect to have the
>> effect of clothing them. They are, however, attempting to
>> educate children, and they are doing things that one might
>> expect to have that effect, such as telling them facts, and
>> setting them problems to solve that stretch their understanding,
>> and providing them with textbooks. There's no reason to expect
>> that to be optimal, but it's scarcely credible to me that it
>> has no effect.
>
> It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
> education.
I didn't say that it necessarily will. Only that, since the
schools are intending to educate, and since they do things
that look like they ought in general to have that effect,
the burden of proof is on whoever wants to claim that they
don't.
> Many people here would agree that textbooks that teach
> creationism (and they exist and are used by some schools!) are *worse*
> than no textbooks at all. Telling children `facts' that are patently false,
> for instance,
>
> ``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
> cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
>
> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
> and ice.''
>
> ``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
> telescope.''
>
> (I bet you've been told these!)
I've heard the first two. I'm not sure whether I've heard the third.
The second, at least, is a plausible theory, the sort of thing that
could have been right, and I don't think it does any great harm for
children to be told it. I would of course prefer them to be told
the truth, but even false statements can be helpful if they get the
children thinking in scientific terms.
Perhaps I should list all the true things I was told in school;
but that would take rather too long.
> What about math texts that ask:
>
> ``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
> (Connected Math Project)
So there's a typo. So what?
> or state
> ``To become skillful at handling situations that call for the
> addition and subtraction of fractions, you need a good plan for
> carrying out your computations. In mathematics, a plan -- or a
> series of steps -- for doing a computation is called an
> algorithm. For an algorithm to be useful, each step should be clear
> and precise so that other people will be able to carry out the
> steps and get correct answers.''
Very poor. And yes, there's a lot of bad education out there.
There's also a lot (I'd say a lot more) bad education provided
by parents, or acquired by self-education.
Please don't be offended, but I'm getting bored of this. If you'd
like to present some credible evidence that schools do (on balance)
no educational good -- as opposed to anecdotes showing that sometimes
people write bad textbooks or tell pupils stupid things -- then
please go ahead and we can discuss that. (It might be better to
do it in private e-mail, since this is way, way off topic.) But
if you're just going to keep repeating that we don't have *proof*
that schools do any good, and that there are some bad things about
them, then I think we're done.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <hdz08m7y.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>> It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
>> education.
>
> I didn't say that it necessarily will. Only that, since the
> schools are intending to educate, and since they do things
> that look like they ought in general to have that effect,
> the burden of proof is on whoever wants to claim that they
> don't.
I disagree.
1) The excuse of `gee, I wanted it to work, and it sure *seems*
like it ought to work' is used far too often for justification
of all sorts of horrible things:
- capital punishment
- D.A.R.E.
- Terrorist Information Awareness
- communism
- fascism
- utilitarianism
2) One cannot prove a negative.
>> Many people here would agree that textbooks that teach
>> creationism (and they exist and are used by some schools!) are *worse*
>> than no textbooks at all. Telling children `facts' that are patently false,
>> for instance,
>>
>> ``The reason clouds form when air cools is because
>> cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air.''
>>
>> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
>> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
>> and ice.''
>>
>> ``Galileo eventually became blind by observing the Sun through a
>> telescope.''
>>
>> (I bet you've been told these!)
>
> I've heard the first two. I'm not sure whether I've heard the third.
I didn't mean all.
> The second, at least, is a plausible theory, the sort of thing that
> could have been right, and I don't think it does any great harm for
> children to be told it. I would of course prefer them to be told
> the truth, but even false statements can be helpful if they get the
> children thinking in scientific terms.
We are at severe odds here. The Biblical theory of creation is
plausible, too. Ptolemaic astronomy, phrenology, eugenics, are all
plausible and all could have been right. No great harm teaching them
to children, right? Gets 'em thinking, anyway....
>> What about math texts that ask:
>>
>> ``Find the slope and y-intercept for the equation 10 = x - 2.5''
>> (Connected Math Project)
>
> So there's a typo. So what?
Here is another from the same curriculum.
In 1980, the town of Rio Rancho, located on a mesa outside Santa Fe,
New Mexico, was destined for obscurity. But as a result of hard work
by its city officials, it began adding manufacturing jobs at a fast
rate. As a result, the city's population grew 239% form 1980 to
1990, making Rio Rancho the fastest-growing "small city" in the
United States. The population of Rio Rancho in 1990 was 37,000.
a. What was the poplulation of Rio Rancho in 1980?
b. If the same rate of population increase continues, what will the
population be in the year 2000?
If you think that you understand this question, consider a city with a
0% population growth.
> Very poor. And yes, there's a lot of bad education out there.
> There's also a lot (I'd say a lot more) bad education provided
> by parents, or acquired by self-education.
Any bad education provided by parents is not institutionalized. Your
lack of knowledge doesn't negatively affect my kid.
As to whether there is *more* bad education provided by parents,
that's an assessment that you'll have to support.
> Please don't be offended, but I'm getting bored of this. If you'd
> like to present some credible evidence that schools do (on balance)
> no educational good
I'm not (at the moment) arguing that schools do no good, I'm simply
pointing out that questioning whether they do good is not
unreasonable.
> -- as opposed to anecdotes showing that sometimes
> people write bad textbooks or tell pupils stupid things -- then
> please go ahead and we can discuss that.
The Connected Math Project is not a `sometimes' thing but an
`exemplary' math program touted by the United States Department of
Education.
--
~jrm
Joe Marshall wrote:
>>> It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
>>> education.
>>
>> I didn't say that it necessarily will. Only that, since the
>> schools are intending to educate, and since they do things
>> that look like they ought in general to have that effect,
>> the burden of proof is on whoever wants to claim that they
>> don't.
>
> I disagree.
>
> 1) The excuse of `gee, I wanted it to work, and it sure *seems*
> like it ought to work' is used far too often for justification
> of all sorts of horrible things:
> - capital punishment
> - D.A.R.E.
> - Terrorist Information Awareness
> - communism
> - fascism
> - utilitarianism
That X is used as an excuse for some other horrible thing Y
is no argument against X. And, for several of the Ys you
posit there, there *are* good points (doubtless outweighed
by bad ones) for which "gee, I wanted it to work, etc" *is*
some support.
Anyway, if instead of addressing the issues you're going to
make meta-arguments of the form "Something that sounds a little
like that could be used to defend fascism", then it seems I've
been trolled. Oh well; sh*t happens.
> 2) One cannot prove a negative.
It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
that they aren't.
>>> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
>>> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
>>> and ice.''
...
>> The second, at least, is a plausible theory, the sort of thing that
>> could have been right, and I don't think it does any great harm for
>> children to be told it. I would of course prefer them to be told
>> the truth, but even false statements can be helpful if they get the
>> children thinking in scientific terms.
>
> We are at severe odds here. The Biblical theory of creation is
> plausible, too. Ptolemaic astronomy, phrenology, eugenics, are all
> plausible and all could have been right. No great harm teaching them
> to children, right? Gets 'em thinking, anyway....
I'm sorry; I *have* been trolled. Bye. I'll finish replying to this
article, and then we're done.
> Here is another from the same curriculum.
>
> In 1980, the town of Rio Rancho, located on a mesa outside Santa Fe,
> New Mexico, was destined for obscurity. But as a result of hard work
> by its city officials, it began adding manufacturing jobs at a fast
> rate. As a result, the city's population grew 239% form 1980 to
> 1990, making Rio Rancho the fastest-growing "small city" in the
> United States. The population of Rio Rancho in 1990 was 37,000.
>
> a. What was the population of Rio Rancho in 1980?
>
> b. If the same rate of population increase continues, what will the
> population be in the year 2000?
>
> If you think that you understand this question, consider a city with a
> 0% population growth.
I don't think I understand your complaint. I don't like the
question ("as a result of hard work by its city officials"
smells like some kind of propaganda to me, and the assumption
the pupils are being asked to make is obviously ludicrous),
but it seems clear to me that they want the answers 37000/3.39
and 37000*3.39 respectively, and it's not *that* bad.
>> Very poor. And yes, there's a lot of bad education out there.
>> There's also a lot (I'd say a lot more) bad education provided
>> by parents, or acquired by self-education.
>
> Any bad education provided by parents is not institutionalized.
> Your lack of knowledge doesn't negatively affect my kid.
So?
> As to whether there is *more* bad education provided by parents,
> that's an assessment that you'll have to support.
Have to? Nope.
>> Please don't be offended, but I'm getting bored of this. If you'd
>> like to present some credible evidence that schools do (on balance)
>> no educational good
>
> I'm not (at the moment) arguing that schools do no good, I'm simply
> pointing out that questioning whether they do good is not
> unreasonable.
Questioning is easy. Maybe Lisp is really a lousy programming
language. Maybe George Bush is in contact with aliens. Maybe
the universe is only 6000 years old. We have to choose which
questions to take seriously. In the absence of some actual,
solid evidence, the question "Do schools actually do any good
whatever?" is not one I see any reason to take seriously.
>> -- as opposed to anecdotes showing that sometimes
>> people write bad textbooks or tell pupils stupid things -- then
>> please go ahead and we can discuss that.
>
> The Connected Math Project is not a `sometimes' thing but an
> `exemplary' math program touted by the United States Department of
> Education.
All that means is that one bunch of people wrote a bad
mathematics education program (assuming they did; I have
a colossal sample of two questions, presumably selected
for egregious badness, to go on) and that another were
foolish enough to think it better than it is.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <4quz46na.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>>>> It isn't clear to me that *intending* to educate will result in
>>>> education.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that it necessarily will. Only that, since the
>>> schools are intending to educate, and since they do things
>>> that look like they ought in general to have that effect,
>>> the burden of proof is on whoever wants to claim that they
>>> don't.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> 1) The excuse of `gee, I wanted it to work, and it sure *seems*
>> like it ought to work' is used far too often for justification
>> of all sorts of horrible things:
>> - capital punishment
>> - D.A.R.E.
>> - Terrorist Information Awareness
>> - communism
>> - fascism
>> - utilitarianism
>
> That X is used as an excuse for some other horrible thing Y
> is no argument against X.
It most certainly is! (Provided, of course, that X is a *legitimate*
excuse for Y.)
But I am disagreeing with the premise that since the intent is Y, and
the actions are prima facie furthering that intent, then we must
*assume* that these actions are effective until we have clear proof
that they are not. This is beyond absurd --- it is dangerous, as
evidenced by the examples above.
> And, for several of the Ys you posit there, there *are* good points
> (doubtless outweighed by bad ones) for which "gee, I wanted it to
> work, etc" *is* some support.
Several?! Admittedly the D.A.R.E. program is fairly benign in that it
apparently only wastes money, but I don't recall the good points of
fascism. In no case, however, is the *desire* to have something work
a valid justification for doing it.
> Anyway, if instead of addressing the issues you're going to
> make meta-arguments of the form "Something that sounds a little
> like that could be used to defend fascism", then it seems I've
> been trolled. Oh well; sh*t happens.
Ad hominem arguments don't work, either.
Me, Kenny Tilton, Kent Pitman, Erann Gat, Tim Bradshaw, and Pascal
Costanza are all well known trolls in this group.
>> 2) One cannot prove a negative.
>
> It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
> prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
> that they aren't.
I wouldn't be *that* pessimistic, but my point was that if we are
going to tax people for public education, it is incumbent upon us to
make damn sure that we are getting what we are paying for. In the
case of education of our children, it would be extraordinarily
irresponsible to pay for an education that is worse than nothing. Yet
it is entirely possible that we are doing exactly that.
>>>> ``One can skate on ice because the pressure of the skate causes the
>>>> ice to melt, thus dramatically reducing the friction between skate
>>>> and ice.''
> ...
>>> The second, at least, is a plausible theory, the sort of thing that
>>> could have been right, and I don't think it does any great harm for
>>> children to be told it. I would of course prefer them to be told
>>> the truth, but even false statements can be helpful if they get the
>>> children thinking in scientific terms.
>>
>> We are at severe odds here. The Biblical theory of creation is
>> plausible, too. Ptolemaic astronomy, phrenology, eugenics, are all
>> plausible and all could have been right. No great harm teaching them
>> to children, right? Gets 'em thinking, anyway....
>
> I'm sorry; I *have* been trolled. Bye. I'll finish replying to this
> article, and then we're done.
Ad hominem and argument by stubborness.
The examples I gave, creationism, ptolemaic astronomy, phrenology, and
eugenics have all been been taught (and are continuing to be taught in
some places). However, these theories are wrong and have caused a
significant amount of suffering in this world.
I think that telling falsehoods to children is one of the greatest
evils one can do (short of deliberate abuse, of course).
>> Here is another from the same curriculum.
>>
>> In 1980, the town of Rio Rancho, located on a mesa outside Santa Fe,
>> New Mexico, was destined for obscurity. But as a result of hard work
>> by its city officials, it began adding manufacturing jobs at a fast
>> rate. As a result, the city's population grew 239% form 1980 to
>> 1990, making Rio Rancho the fastest-growing "small city" in the
>> United States. The population of Rio Rancho in 1990 was 37,000.
>>
>> a. What was the population of Rio Rancho in 1980?
>>
>> b. If the same rate of population increase continues, what will the
>> population be in the year 2000?
>>
>> If you think that you understand this question, consider a city with a
>> 0% population growth.
>
> I don't think I understand your complaint. I don't like the
> question ("as a result of hard work by its city officials"
> smells like some kind of propaganda to me, and the assumption
> the pupils are being asked to make is obviously ludicrous),
> but it seems clear to me that they want the answers 37000/3.39
> and 37000*3.39 respectively, and it's not *that* bad.
Well, you're wrong. The answers in the teacher's manual are the CMP
booklet goes on to recommend dividing 37,000 by 2.39 to arrive at the
answer it lists for question A (15,481) and multiplying it by the same
amount to get answer B (88,430).
(You are correct about the math, you are wrong about what answers they
wanted.)
>> Any bad education provided by parents is not institutionalized.
>> Your lack of knowledge doesn't negatively affect my kid.
>
> So?
Institutionalized bad education causes widespread damage, especially
if attendence is coerced. Certain individuals can be horrible
teachers, but if they are only teaching their own children, the
detrimental effect is limited.
>> As to whether there is *more* bad education provided by parents,
>> that's an assessment that you'll have to support.
>
> Have to? Nope.
Well, I'm not holding a gun to your head, but simply asserting that
trusting parents to educate their own children will lead to disaster
is implausible.
>>> Please don't be offended, but I'm getting bored of this. If you'd
>>> like to present some credible evidence that schools do (on balance)
>>> no educational good
>>
>> I'm not (at the moment) arguing that schools do no good, I'm simply
>> pointing out that questioning whether they do good is not
>> unreasonable.
>
> Questioning is easy. Maybe Lisp is really a lousy programming
> language. Maybe George Bush is in contact with aliens. Maybe
> the universe is only 6000 years old. We have to choose which
> questions to take seriously. In the absence of some actual,
> solid evidence, the question "Do schools actually do any good
> whatever?" is not one I see any reason to take seriously.
Which is why I offered examples.
>>> -- as opposed to anecdotes showing that sometimes
>>> people write bad textbooks or tell pupils stupid things -- then
>>> please go ahead and we can discuss that.
>>
>> The Connected Math Project is not a `sometimes' thing but an
>> `exemplary' math program touted by the United States Department of
>> Education.
>
> All that means is that one bunch of people wrote a bad
> mathematics education program (assuming they did; I have
> a colossal sample of two questions, presumably selected
> for egregious badness, to go on) and that another were
> foolish enough to think it better than it is.
CMP is one of the more widespread math programs. It is the standard
curriculum for many states.
But many highly respected math professors and Nobel laureates believe
it to be crap. See
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6305/Math/OpenLetter.htm
By demonstrating that at least one popular, widespread,
government-sponsored educational initiative is in fact causing harm
(not simply doing no good whatsoever), I think I have raised enough of
a doubt to make it reasonable to question whether schools do any good
whatsoever.
--
~jrm
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
> prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
> that they aren't.
No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
Thank you.
Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> > It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
> > prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
> > that they aren't.
>
> No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
> loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
>
> Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
> Thank you.
>
The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that only
people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
This reminds me of the way this thread got started, which was when
someone told the CLISP developers to lose the Menorah.
Mario's posting seems even more problematic, since he implicitly
claims to retain the right to express his own views while wanting to
suppress those of people he disagrees with.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can
be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism's virtues, we offer
it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance but only for its
capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude
that socialism suffers from a fundamental and profound flaw. We
conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice including
our freedom... -- Janice Rogers Brown
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>> > It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
>> > prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
>> > that they aren't.
>>
>> No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
>> loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
>>
>> Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
>> Thank you.
>
> The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that only
> people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
If you forgive the observation, I think this is a very
tinfoil-hat-bearing reading of Mario's post :-) Reading it more
charitably, it seems to be expressing a certain amount of frustration
at the use of _this_ forum for an argument for which it is not suited.
A frustration that I suggest we should all, whether we bear tinfoil
hats or not, be feeling.
Christophe
(as penance for this offtopic rubish, I shall produce something worth
reading in the short future)
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
> > Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> >> > It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
> >> > prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
> >> > that they aren't.
> >>
> >> No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
> >> loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
> >>
> >> Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
> >> Thank you.
> >
> > The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that only
> > people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
>
> If you forgive the observation, I think this is a very
> tinfoil-hat-bearing reading of Mario's post :-) Reading it more
> charitably, it seems to be expressing a certain amount of frustration
> at the use of _this_ forum for an argument for which it is not suited.
>
> A frustration that I suggest we should all, whether we bear tinfoil
> hats or not, be feeling.
I would agree with that if he had, without preliminary, asked for the
discussion to be taken to email.
BTW, I've deleted completely written messages to this thread because
of a certain uneasiness about its off-topic nature. Comes and
goes.... :-)
I wrote something a long time ago that I call the law of Usenet thread
survival:
Definition:
A Usenet thread can be said to be `surviving' when messages
are added to it.
Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
Usenet threads survive as long as people are willing to write
messages for them.
Corollary 1 to Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
Posting to a thread ensures the survival of the thread.
Corollary 2 to Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
Not posting to a thread reduces the chance the thread will
survive.
The main "insight" here is that threads survive as long as people want
to write messages for a thread, whether or not anyone wants to read
those messages. :-)
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
The nice thing about being a celebrity is that when you bore people,
they think it's their fault. --- Henry Kissinger
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
>>>>>prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
>>>>>that they aren't.
>>>>
>>>>No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
>>>>loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
>>>>
>>>>Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
>>>>Thank you.
>>>
>>>The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that only
>>>people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
>>
>>If you forgive the observation, I think this is a very
>>tinfoil-hat-bearing reading of Mario's post :-) Reading it more
>>charitably, it seems to be expressing a certain amount of frustration
>>at the use of _this_ forum for an argument for which it is not suited.
>>
>>A frustration that I suggest we should all, whether we bear tinfoil
>>hats or not, be feeling.
>
>
> I would agree with that if he had, without preliminary, asked for the
> discussion to be taken to email.
>
> BTW, I've deleted completely written messages to this thread because
> of a certain uneasiness about its off-topic nature. Comes and
> goes.... :-)
>
> I wrote something a long time ago that I call the law of Usenet thread
> survival:
>
> Definition:
>
> A Usenet thread can be said to be `surviving' when messages
> are added to it.
>
> Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
>
> Usenet threads survive as long as people are willing to write
> messages for them.
>
> Corollary 1 to Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
>
> Posting to a thread ensures the survival of the thread.
>
> Corollary 2 to Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
>
> Not posting to a thread reduces the chance the thread will
> survive.
>
>
> The main "insight" here is that threads survive as long as people want
> to write messages for a thread, whether or not anyone wants to read
> those messages. :-)
You're no fun! The above is Usenet analysis morally equivalent to
classical mechanics or euclidean geometry. But parallel lines can meet,
and by the same token in the early 21st Centruy Tilton identified c.l.l
articles confirming the Woodward-Bernsten conjecture of non-terminal
terminations and, more to the point, non-continuing continuations.
Well, sounds like Joe and Gareth are calling it quits, that just
leaves... us? Last one out hit the lights. Does this headscarf belong to
anyone?
:)
kt
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> and, more to the point, non-continuing continuations.
Holy crap Kenny, you accidentally brought this back on-topic!
So, in a Lisp system, continuations would be what, infinite extent
catch/throw? So I guess all we'd need for non-continuing
continuations is a catch tag.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <87eku2l7mj.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, I've deleted completely written messages to this thread because
> of a certain uneasiness about its off-topic nature. Comes and
> goes.... :-)
>
[...]
> Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
>
> Usenet threads survive as long as people are willing to write
> messages for them.
>
> Corollary 1 to Law of Usenet Thread Survival:
>
> Posting to a thread ensures the survival of the thread.
[...]
>
> The main "insight" here is that threads survive as long as people
> want to write messages for a thread, whether or not anyone wants to
> read those messages. :-)
Maybe some of those messages you've deleted would have taken people's
willingness to post to this thread away, hence proving Corollary 1
incorrect ;-)
cheers,
Erik
Oh damn...
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
>>>prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
>>>that they aren't.
>>
>>No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
>>loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
>>
>>Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
>>Thank you.
>>
>
>
> The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that only
> people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
>
> This reminds me of the way this thread got started, which was when
> someone told the CLISP developers to lose the Menorah.
>
> Mario's posting seems even more problematic, since he implicitly
> claims to retain the right to express his own views while wanting to
> suppress those of people he disagrees with.
I take a more benign view, viz., that while he wishes the social
geniuses would stop abusing this Lisp forum just to hear the sound of
their own voices, he succumbed to the understandable temptation to weigh
in. It was a misstep, but not one that invalidates the whole message.
I think he only gets brought up on self-referential charges if he now
gets sucked into this contamination.
You are right about the misimpression occasioned by the juxtaposition of
the two remarks. It would have been better had he responded to a
different despoiling of c.l.l. and wrote "Good point! Now shut the fuck
up!"
:)
kt
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
* Fred Gilham
| The way this came out, it sounds like Mario Mommer is saying that
| only people who agree with his views should have a forum here.
If I may... It is his opinion. It has no bearing on you unless you
let it. If he /appears/ to want other views to be banished, what
are you saying outright about his views?
| Mario's posting seems even more problematic, since he implicitly
| claims to retain the right to express his own views while wanting to
| suppress those of people he disagrees with.
This is not problematic. Ignore the "implicit claim" and consider
what he says. If you think he wants to suppress the opinions of
those he disagrees with, what of it? Why does it affect you? What
can he /do/? Pointing it out, however, strongly communicates that
you want to suppress /his/ opinion, and that is the only message he
will receive -- that your reaction to something you do not want to
hear is to suppress it, while at the same time denying his right to
same. Chances are, he never had a desire to suppress your opinion,
so now he only observes that /you/ come out strongly in favor of
denying him his right to express an opinion just because you think
it is suppressive, and unless he is very mature, he will consider
this a much worse threat than you considered his "implicit claim".
Just let other people have their desires and needs. Do not let them
affect yours. Wanting to control other people's desires and needs
is the core problem. If it has been "learned" from observing others
who want to control your own desires and needs, you can do nothing
better than to unlearn it and realize that /nobody/ wants to control
your desires and needs, even if they appear to do so, and even if
they are explicit: the only person who controls them is /you/, and
the only way anybody can succeed in controlling them is by making
/you/ change your own desires and needs. Take charge of yourself,
instead, and expect others to do the same.
But let's try to avoid the meta-discussions about how other people
try to manipulate your rights to express yourself. Look around you.
There is nobody /here/ who could possibly affect what you write or
which opinions or views you express -- you have to invent them to be
present with you. No matter what anybody says, the only person who
can make you feel any way at all from what you /read/ is yourself,
after you have interpreted what you have read. This is not fiction,
however, and you have no obligation to enter the world of any author
to take part in a discussion with them. With nearly a year's worth
of distance, I can confidently say this: The /incredibly/ bad people
who frequent so many newsgroups have /zero/ effect on anyone unless
they let them.
| This reminds me of the way this thread got started, which was when
| someone told the CLISP developers to lose the Menorah.
Just as anyone is free to say they should, they are free to ignore
it. Unless someone can demonstrate actual damage from an action and
that they were hurt despite taking reasonable precautions, their
complaints /must/ be dismissed as frivolous. Just because someone
says he suffers, does not mean he does, and even if he does, that
does not mean it is anyone's business. Quite the contrary, a lot of
really bad people successfully manipulate others by lying about how
they suffer and exploit the natural tendency of better humans to
feel compassion for sufferers, but in real life, we quickly withdraw
our sympathy from people who hurt themselves in order to gain the
sympathy of others, even more so after learning that they tried to
blame someone. On the Net, you have to take someone's word for it,
and if they can accuse someone else who has been accused by others,
as well, really bad people can make it appear as though they are
hurt so they can manipulate other people into doing their bidding.
Just because someone points out that something is not the way it
ought to be, does not mean that they blame someone else for it or
demand that they change it.
I'd like to believe that people have managed to calm down and grow
up in my absence -- I know that some people completely failed to do
either as long as they saw my name and had an excuse not to -- and
the first order of business for a mature, calm person is to accept
full responsibility for his own emotions, reactions, /and/ actions.
This is hard. It is a lot harder than blaming someone for any or
all of them. But in the long run, it is much, much easier.
--
Erik Naggum | Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <d69mqqnj.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>> It's very far from clear to me that there's the slightest
>> prospect of proving either that schools are beneficial or
>> that they aren't.
>
> No one I know of, except some far right c.l.l. tinfoil-hat-bearing
> loons, doubts that schools are benefitial.
You don't get out much, do you?
Do you think *all* schools are beneficial? If some schools are not,
are government-run schools somehow immune to these problems?
> Can you keep that rubish to yourselves in a private communication?
> Thank you.
I apologize for soliciting your opinion and for .... wait a minute.
I don't recall asking you.
Gentlemen (and ladies, if any read this forum);
I would be very much gratified if religious discussion in a
forum devoted to a programming language ceased.
As someone who holds non-mainstream religious values, which
some may find offensive, it's been very difficult for me to refrain
from posting some potentially-controversial replies to some of the
messages which have appeared here in the last few days. But I don't
want to pursue religious controversies on c.l.l.
Bear
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <4zncq3sqb.fsf@franz.com>
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> Gentlemen (and ladies, if any read this forum);
>
> I would be very much gratified if religious discussion in a
> forum devoted to a programming language ceased.
>
> As someone who holds non-mainstream religious values, which
> some may find offensive, it's been very difficult for me to refrain
> from posting some potentially-controversial replies to some of the
> messages which have appeared here in the last few days. But I don't
> want to pursue religious controversies on c.l.l.
Thanks, Ray, I needed that. I've also had similar temptations to
reply, but you've helped me to refrain. I second Ray's request
to cease discussions about religion on c.l.l.
Not that there won't be religious discussions on c.l.l., but only
that they be about Lisp :-)
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
>
>>Gentlemen (and ladies, if any read this forum);
>>
>> I would be very much gratified if religious discussion in a
>>forum devoted to a programming language ceased.
>>
>> As someone who holds non-mainstream religious values, which
>>some may find offensive, it's been very difficult for me to refrain
>>from posting some potentially-controversial replies to some of the
>>messages which have appeared here in the last few days. But I don't
>>want to pursue religious controversies on c.l.l.
>
> Thanks, Ray, I needed that. I've also had similar temptations to
> reply, but you've helped me to refrain. I second Ray's request
> to cease discussions about religion on c.l.l.
I also second that. In the beginning of this thread, I have contributed
to it but that was a mistake. The issues that are discussed haven't been
agreed upon by people in the last few thousand years. It's naive to
think that we in c.l.l will be able to settle them.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: OT Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <llo930om.fsf@comcast.net>
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> Gentlemen (and ladies, if any read this forum);
>
> I would be very much gratified if religious discussion in a
> forum devoted to a programming language ceased.
Ok.
--
~jrm
On 12 Jan 2004 21:40:37 +0000, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> BTW, I believe that education is a human right. I believe that nobody
>> should be allowed to prevent someone else from learning everything his
>> inclination, means and ability permit him to learn. (Note that by
>> "his" and "him" I mean any human being, including female human
>> beings.) OTOH I don't believe that anyone has a right to force
>> another to educate him, either directly or indirectly.
> I don't think a "human right" is worth diddlysquat if there isn't
> some effort made to ensure that everyone who wants or needs it
> gets it.
Yes. "Human rights" is nonsense.
> Imagine there's a colony on the moon, and I get control of the
> air supply. There's no shortage of air; I could give everyone
> all they need with no danger, and at minimal cost and effort
> to myself. Instead, I sell air at a cost of $1M for a supply
> enough to last one person a year. Thousands die. But it's not
> my fault, right?, because I'm making the air available to everyone
> with the means to get it. If some paupers are unable to afford
> what I'm charging, that's just too bad, right?, and no one has
> the right to force me to give away my precious air if I don't
> want to.
Absolutely right. [But the question arises: how is it that there's an
unlimited free air supply available, and you have the only legitimate
access to it?]
> I bet you don't actually agree with the sentiments expressed
> in that paragraph.
I bet I do, though!
> Neither do I. My reason is that I think
> there's some sort of right to life (though I don't much care
> for such language), which goes further than just saying that
> it's wrong to murder people. It seems to me that your "right
> to education" is analogous to the right not to be murdered.
What if there are no teachers? This "right to education" must carry
with it the right to _force_ people to teach, even to the extent of
killing off masses of people who outright refuse to do so, if that
became necessary, right? Sounds wonderful :-)
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
On 10 Jan 2004 10:03:33 -0800, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote in message news:<··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>...
>> There's another, and much better, solution: get the "state" out of the
>> business of running schools.
> Although I agree that the "state" shouldn't be doing the actual
> administration, because of its tendencies toward inefficiency and
> bureaucratic bloat, the "state" does have two important roles IMHO.
> 1. Funding of education through tax revenues, else the only schools
> will be for the children of the relatively wealthy, or those funded by
> inherently intellectually biased organizations like churches.
They shouldn't be funding schools either. Even if you don't disagree
on principle with taxing some people to pay for stuff for other
people, inevitably if the government funds something they have control
over it: you can't separate "funding" and "administration" like that.
> 2. The establishment of standards, else total local autonomy will lead
> to such intellectual biases as creationism being taught as a science
> (it is not).
Or "computer science", to which the same argument applies!? :-)
But setting standards is exactly the kind of control I mean. There
won't be masses of schools teaching such rubbish, and the "market"
knows how to take care of any that do, but it's none of the
governments -- or your -- business. Just don't enrol your kids there.
--
You have been evaluated. You have a negative reference count. Prepare
to be garbage collected. Persistence is futile. -- Erik Naggum
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley wrote:
> But setting standards is exactly the kind of control I mean. There
> won't be masses of schools teaching such rubbish, and the "market"
> knows how to take care of any that do, but it's none of the
> governments -- or your -- business. Just don't enrol your kids there.
The market demonstrably doesn't know everything (else there
would be more billionaires running Lisp companies...), and
in particular I see no reason to believe that it knows how
to distinguish reliably between good education and bad.
"Just don't enrol your kids there": good advice, but I very
strongly disagree with the implication that the only way
bad schooling affects you is if your children are subjected
to it. A few years down the line, it can affect the whole
society you live in. If other people's children are taught
creationism in school, then a few years later they may be
the ones whose protests persuade a local museum to stop
exhibiting dinosaurs, so that your children can't go and
see them. Or the ones who won't let *their* children go
to any school that doesn't teach creationism, driving the
ones where your children teach biology out of business.
Education is full of externalities.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> writes:
> [schools teaching untrue stuff]
> and the "market" knows how to take care of any that do
Is that proven? My understanding was that a perfectly fluid market
responded to the requirements of the majority. Is it clear that the
majority knows the difference between science and creationism?
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote:
> There
> won't be masses of schools teaching such rubbish, and the "market"
> knows how to take care of any that do, but it's none of the
> governments -- or your -- business.
The "market" is neither omniscient, nor infallible, and *requires*
standards and regulation. As a simple reductio ad absurdum of the strict
"free market" position, if the "market" were the only factor operating,
and there were *no* regulations of trade, slavery would still be legal -
after all, as long as there is a "demand," (there are, in fact, many
places where people are still bought and sold into bondage, so yes,
there is a "market demand" for human captives) the "market" should be
allowed to provide it, right?
We regulate markets to ensure that supply and demand are not the *only*
forces driving *certain* markets. In the case of education (or human
labor), there are, as has been noted by others, undesirable outcomes,
such as most or all schools teaching creationism instead of real
science, (or the emergence of open markets for the buying and selling of
human beings) which the "market" might well choose, but which, for the
good of everyone, the "market" must not be allowed to choose.
Believing in the infallibility of the "market" is simply an abdication
of one's moral and civic responsibility.
Is the premise here that having OT in the subject makes it OK to conduct
this bullshit thread on what was starting to become a fairly respectable
computer language (Lisp, remember?) newsgroup? Enough already. You all
are making comp.lang.lisp look like a home for nutcases. Take a hike to
alt.crap, will you plz?
kt
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:48:48 GMT, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote:
>> There
>> won't be masses of schools teaching such rubbish, and the "market"
>> knows how to take care of any that do, but it's none of the
>> governments -- or your -- business.
> The "market" is neither omniscient, nor infallible, and *requires*
> standards and regulation. As a simple reductio ad absurdum of the strict
> "free market" position, if the "market" were the only factor operating,
> and there were *no* regulations of trade, slavery would still be legal -
Non-sequitur. You're assuming, for reasons I can't begin to imagine,
that slavery _itself_ is OK (never mind the slave _trade_). Nobody
says murder and theft and kidnapping are OK just because they support
free markets.
[But if you assume kidnapping people is perfectly fine, why would it
be so wrong to sell those kidnappees to someone else?]
> after all, as long as there is a "demand," (there are, in fact, many
> places where people are still bought and sold into bondage, so yes,
> there is a "market demand" for human captives) the "market" should be
> allowed to provide it, right?
More fallacious nonsense. There is no market for slaves in a truly
free marketplace -- slaves are expensive:
(a) First, you have to kidnap them -- presumably there'll be a fight
about that. Expense.
(b) Second, you have to be able to hold on to them -- unless the
government steps in to help with that, stopping them escaping is
going to be something of an act. More expense.
(c) Slaves don't want to work for you. They're going to be as
minimally productive as they can get away with. Still more
expense.
It's far cheaper to hire willing workers for a proper wage: you don't
risk being killed in the act of trying to take them from their homes,
they don't run away if you're not watching, so you don't need to
employ guards, and they'll be far more productive.
> labor), there are, as has been noted by others, undesirable outcomes,
> such as most or all schools teaching creationism instead of real
> science, (or the emergence of open markets for the buying and selling of
> human beings)
There are already (more-or-less-)open markets for the buying and
selling of human beings. Just look at the "employment" section of
your favourite newspaper!
Oooh, how awful -- I guess we'd better have the government put a stop
to /that/ immediately! :-)
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
This is my last post in this thread as we've gotten beyond off-topic
(sorry, Kenny). If you can't see that markets require regulation to
prevent the truly unscrupulous actors in those markets from wreaking
havok in any number of ways, then there is no point in continuing to
discuss this with you. You seem to be suffering from a sort of
absolutism which is a simple logical fallacy - "if free markets are
generally good," (I agree, they *are* generally good) "then a completely
unfettered market would be *great!!*" The conclusion does not follow as
a logical necessity from the antecedent. Moreover, the empirical
evidence of both history and the present world in which we live is ample
proof that markets left *completely* unregulated can, and do, lead to
truly unspeakable horrors, and untold misery for millions of our fellow
human beings.
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote:
> More fallacious nonsense. There is no market for slaves in a truly
> free marketplace -- slaves are expensive:
You are quite simply factually *wrong* here. Slaves are quite
profitable, and *more* so than paid workers because the only cost is
minimal food, which is less than the cost of wages, and allowing them to
sleep on the floor of the workplace, in the fields, or in existing
barracks.
See:
<http://www.iabolish.com/index.htm> (The American Anti-Slavery group)
and links, especially.:
<http://www.iabolish.com/today/background/worldwide-evil.htm>
>
> (a) First, you have to kidnap them -- presumably there'll be a fight
> about that. Expense.
Or simply lure them with the false promise of a paying job, and then
hold them against their will once they are on your territory. Small
expense to keep them there if you are armed and they are not. Just lock
them in the workshop at night. This is how it works in the real world.
Since overseers are necessary anyway, you simply make sure that they are
armed, a small, fixed cost, which is repaid many times over by the
thousands of dollars of unpaid wages.
>
> (b) Second, you have to be able to hold on to them -- unless the
> government steps in to help with that, stopping them escaping is
> going to be something of an act. More expense.
Not if you hobble them, or shackle them, or torture those caught
escaping as a deterrent, or if, as above, you have guns and they don't.
>
> (c) Slaves don't want to work for you. They're going to be as
> minimally productive as they can get away with.
Unless you threaten them with torture or mutilation, both common
practices, then they usually submit and work, especially when you just
burned the girl next to them with a cigarette for refusing to "service"
a customer, or beat the next guy bloody with your rifle butt for not
cutting sugar cane fast enough.
> Still more expense.
Armed enforcers are not much more expensive than ordinary workplace
overseers or supervisors. Any difference in cost is repaid many times
over by the wages you don't have to pay your slave labor force and
instead keep as profit.
Slavery exists *because* it is profitable, and because the "free market"
is not prevented from "satifying the demand" for it. A completely
unregulated "free market" is a loose cannon. Markets need to be
regulated so that certain *extremely* undesirable outcomes cannot be
chosen by the market.
The complete illegality of slavery is a government regulation of an
*existing* market - mostly effective, but sadly, not completely
effective. From a purely econmic perspective, other types of regulation
- the illegality of producing a car without seat belts, or the
illegality of running a private school that fails to meet government
educational standards, differ in degree, not kind. It is still the
government interceding in a market in order to ensure that a certain
undesirable range of outcomes cannot be chosen by the market.
This is as it should be. Markets *need* regulation, or those with
sufficient wealth, and insufficient moral scruples, will be free to make
markets in things that we as a community consider unaccepatable, such as
forced child prostitution, slavery, the sale of alcohol to minors, or
the manufacture of passenger cars without seat belts.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:50:39 GMT, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> a logical necessity from the antecedent. Moreover, the empirical
> evidence of both history and the present world in which we live is ample
> proof that markets left *completely* unregulated can, and do, lead to
> truly unspeakable horrors, and untold misery for millions of our fellow
> human beings.
Oh, you have proof of this, do you? When and where, precisely, have
markets been "left *completely* unregulated", to provide this proof?
And what "unspeakable horrors" resulted?
>> More fallacious nonsense. There is no market for slaves in a truly
>> free marketplace -- slaves are expensive:
> You are quite simply factually *wrong* here. Slaves are quite
> profitable, and *more* so than paid workers because the only cost is
> minimal food, which is less than the cost of wages, and allowing them to
> sleep on the floor of the workplace, in the fields, or in existing
> barracks.
If the government is willing to round up runaway slaves, punish people
who help escaping slaves, etc., (or at least look the other way as
your private enforcers do that), and not throw you in jail for
kidnapping, and you can live with an unskilled and inefficient
workforce, then of *course* slaves are cheap. But that's *not* a free
market -- I'm perfectly well aware that government involvement (in
anything) makes for a really crappy situation all around!
> See:
> <http://www.iabolish.com/index.htm> (The American Anti-Slavery group)
> and links, especially.:
> <http://www.iabolish.com/today/background/worldwide-evil.htm>
Yes, of course, this is all about *government-imposed* slavery.
Nothing even vaguely resembling free markets around here. Most of
Africa's run by Marxists and other psychopaths, y'know.
[it's also worth noting that this site includes "child labor" (not
necessarily unpaid) under the heading of "slavery"]
>> (a) First, you have to kidnap them -- presumably there'll be a fight
>> about that. Expense.
> Or simply lure them with the false promise of a paying job, and then
> hold them against their will once they are on your territory. Small
That's called kidnapping. Whether you snatch someone from their bed
or "lure" them somehow, it's still kidnapping. And if you do that,
someone should shoot you. Or at least lock you in a cage for the rest
of your life, but it'd be cheaper to just shoot you. What on earth
does that have to do with controls on markets?
>> (b) Second, you have to be able to hold on to them -- unless the
>> government steps in to help with that, stopping them escaping is
>> going to be something of an act. More expense.
> Not if you hobble them, or shackle them, or torture those caught
> escaping as a deterrent, or if, as above, you have guns and they don't.
Yes, because hobbled and shackled and tortured and terrified and
half-starved workers are *so* much more productive!
[Go back to your iabolish.com and read how slavery doesn't affect the
price of the carpets the slaves are making -- if carpet makers who pay
their workers don't have higher costs, what does that tell you?
Surely, if slavery is so cheap, slave-made carpets must cost a tiny
fraction of what carpets made by paid workers cost, no? And that's
*with* government support. It'd be more expensive to keep the slaves
if the government had any interest in prosecuting the slave-keepers,
and then slave-made carpets would cost *more*. QED]
> Slavery exists *because* it is profitable, and because the "free market"
> is not prevented from "satifying the demand" for it. A completely
There is no free market. Slavery exists because *government
interference in the market* causes it to exist.
> The complete illegality of slavery is a government regulation of an
> *existing* market - mostly effective, but sadly, not completely
"Slavery" doesn't need to be illegal. If "kidnapping" is illegal,
slavery is illegal by transitivity. This has absolutely *nothing* to
do with markets, free or otherwise.
[Again, I'll recommend http://www.mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp]
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:28:28AM +1300, Paul Foley wrote:
> "Slavery" doesn't need to be illegal. If "kidnapping" is illegal,
> slavery is illegal by transitivity.
Just try explaining transitivity to a typical politician or dictator.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
In article <··············@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> ...
> But I still don't think religious symbols
> should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
> fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
> particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
> one) on people.
apart from some islamophobic tendencies behind the head scarf ban, it
supposedly is also meant to head off a reported tendency among
conservative islamic parents to force their daughters the wear the
head scarfs against their will
> ...
hs
--
Not everything that counts can be counted,
not everything that can be counted counts.
A. Einstein
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> In article <··············@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> > ...
> > But I still don't think religious symbols
> > should be banned in schools, and I think banning them is
> > fundamentally *unenlightened*, and amounts to imposing one
> > particular ideology (an anti-religious rather than a religious
> > one) on people.
>
> apart from some islamophobic tendencies behind the head scarf ban,
> it supposedly is also meant to head off a reported tendency among
> conservative islamic parents to force their daughters to wear the
> head scarfs against their will.
If I have to choose between conservative Islamic parents
forcing their (presumably not conservative Islamic) children
to wear headscarves, and an atheist state forcing someone
else's (in some cases conservative Islamic) children *not*
to wear headscarves, then I'll go for the former every time,
on two different grounds: (1) making someone not do something
that they consider a religious requirement is worse than
making them do something inconvenient; (2) it's less bad
for a child to be forced to do something by their parents
than by the state, if it's the same thing in both cases.
(It may not strictly be correct to call the state "atheist",
but it seems to me that when it starts forbidding people
to exercise their religion in ways that don't hurt anyone
else, it's gone beyond "not religious" to "anti-religious".)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
In article <·················@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> ...
> If I have to choose between conservative Islamic parents
> forcing their (presumably not conservative Islamic) children
> to wear headscarves, and an atheist state forcing someone
> else's (in some cases conservative Islamic) children *not*
> to wear headscarves, then I'll go for the former every time,
frankly, this is a choice i'm not willing to accept. forcing sombody
to (not) do something against his will is a bad thing, and i see no
difference whether the force is exercised by the state, parents, or
bosses (note that i don't say that it always has a bad effect)
> on two different grounds: (1) making someone not do something
> that they consider a religious requirement is worse than
> making them do something inconvenient; (2) it's less bad
> for a child to be forced to do something by their parents
> than by the state, if it's the same thing in both cases.
>
> (It may not strictly be correct to call the state "atheist",
> but it seems to me that when it starts forbidding people
> to exercise their religion in ways that don't hurt anyone
> else, it's gone beyond "not religious" to "anti-religious".)
just some background about this religious symbol controversy: there
was a public opinion outcry (not sure whether it was groundswell or
manufactured) that demanded that the headscarf be banned (i'm pretty
sure that the reason wasn't that much concern about the poor girls
that were forced to wear them against their will but outrage against
those bloofdy forreners that dared carry on in a way that was not
traditional to the outcriers). muslims pointed out that for them it
was unconstitutional freligious discrimination, because lots of
christian symbols could be seen without causing complaints. since
this didn't stop the request to ban the islamic symbols, the french
government decided to ban all religious symbols (otherwise any ban
would have been thrown out in the courts). i guess you can call this
democracy in action
the situation in germany is slightly different, and much more
hypocritical. in most german states schools are (or were when i lived
there; in some states you couldn't even graduate from high school if
you got bad marks in religion) by law christian or even confessional
schools, with officially sanctioned crucifixes on the class room walls
and mandatory religious instruction and school prayers. it is exactly
the same states that are at the forefront of the ban-the-headscarf
movement
hs
--
Not everything that counts can be counted,
not everything that can be counted counts.
A. Einstein
> frankly, this is a choice i'm not willing to accept. forcing sombody
> to (not) do something against his will is a bad thing, and i see no
> difference whether the force is exercised by the state, parents, or
> bosses (note that i don't say that it always has a bad effect)
>
That's an illogical stance to take. Do you think that parents should
not not forbid their teenage daughter from wearing skirts that are too
short? Or their teenage son from wearing "wife-beater" shirts? How
about forcing them to do their homework? Forcing them to go to school
in the morning?
When they are 18, children can do what they want. Until then, it is
assumed that parents (within particular parameters of the law) can
make better decisions for the child, and can indeed force them to do
things that are against their will.
From: Tim Josling
Subject: Re: Headscarves -- way off-topic; was Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <btr23s$kso$1@possum.melbpc.org.au>
Rayiner Hashem wrote:
>
> When they are 18, children can do what they want. Until then, it is
> assumed that parents (within particular parameters of the law) can
> make better decisions for the child, and can indeed force them to do
> things that are against their will.
I hope you never have children or if you do, you take a less extreme view.
If children have been told what to do until 18 years old, they will be
in terrible shape to negotiate the adult world.
In many cases even if the adult will make a better decision than the
child, it is better to let the child decide because then they can learn
from their decision.
Perhaps you could spend the money better than a child, but giving a
child pocket money allows them to learn that money is finite, that
giving in to temptation now has consequences later, that being able to
do arithmetic is useful, and to learn how to exercise self discipline.
Naturally there are some things that the parents need to trump, but
these become rarer and rarer over time. If you think you can force a 17
year old to do much at all, you are being very optimistic.
Some parents do not know how to allow their children to grow up.
Tim Josling
> I hope you never have children or if you do, you take a less extreme view.
I personally do not take such an extreme view. Growing up, my parents
pretty much let me run rampent, and it worked out well enough.
However, I contend that parents must have the right to force children
to do things against their will. There is no one-size-fits-all
approach to parenting. Some children respond very well to
near-complete freedom. Other children respond better to discipline. It
is a parent's job to judge what approach is better for their child,
and follow that approach.
The original poster implied that forcing someone to do something
against their will was always a bad thing. This is clearly not the
case. I have seen several children whose lax parents condemmed them to
dropping out of school and getting involved with unsavory people. You
cannot argue that it would have been a worse thing if their parents
had forced them to stay in school, and controlled who they made
friends with.
You didn't answer my question. Should parents be able to force their
children to do things important to their welfare? If a child does not
have the personal responsibility to do their homework, then the
parents must force them. Nothing good can come of giving people
freedom when they are not ready for it.
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Headscarves -- way off-topic; was Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <btskke$2uhf$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"Tim Josling" <····························@nospam.com> wrote in message
·················@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> Rayiner Hashem wrote:
> >
> > When they are 18, children can do what they want. Until then, it is
> > assumed that parents (within particular parameters of the law) can
> > make better decisions for the child, and can indeed force them to do
> > things that are against their will.
>
> I hope you never have children or if you do, you take a less extreme view.
>
I think you are trying to hard to find disagreement.
[snip]
> Naturally there are some things that the parents need to trump, but
> these become rarer and rarer over time.
See? ;)
I agree with everything you say, but would even extend what Rayiner said to
possibly past 18 to whatever time they they are living on their own
(possibly younger than 18 too). Of course you must judiciously choose your
battles of will for reasons you explained well in what I snipped above...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
In article <···························@posting.google.com>,
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
>> frankly, this is a choice i'm not willing to accept. forcing sombody
>> to (not) do something against his will is a bad thing, and i see no
>> difference whether the force is exercised by the state, parents, or
>> bosses (note that i don't say that it always has a bad effect)
>>
> That's an illogical stance to take. Do you think that parents should
> not not forbid their teenage daughter from wearing skirts that are too
> short? Or their teenage son from wearing "wife-beater" shirts? How
> about forcing them to do their homework? Forcing them to go to school
> in the morning?
maybe i was lucky with my kid, but i always got away with a serious
talk exlaining why i thought something should (not) be done. it
wasn't always easy ;-)
> ...
hs
--
Not everything that counts can be counted,
not everything that can be counted counts.
A. Einstein
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> In article <·················@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> > ...
> > If I have to choose between conservative Islamic parents
> > forcing their (presumably not conservative Islamic) children
> > to wear headscarves, and an atheist state forcing someone
> > else's (in some cases conservative Islamic) children *not*
> > to wear headscarves, then I'll go for the former every time,
>
> frankly, this is a choice i'm not willing to accept. forcing sombody
> to (not) do something against his will is a bad thing, and i see no
> difference whether the force is exercised by the state, parents, or
> bosses (note that i don't say that it always has a bad effect)
I think it makes a very considerable difference who's doing it,
and also what they're being forced to do. But, in any case,
I don't see how you can avoid one or other of those things
happening. (In fact, both of them will probably happen to
some extent; but if you're making the laws then you can
trade them off against each other a bit.) There *will* be
parents who want to make their children wear headscarves.
Apparently the only thing the state can do to prevent children
being made to wear headscarves against their will is to ban
them outright in schools. Seems like you have that choice.
You can decline to choose, but that's just the same as
choosing the status quo.
> just some background about this religious symbol controversy: there
> was a public opinion outcry (not sure whether it was groundswell or
> manufactured) that demanded that the headscarf be banned (i'm pretty
> sure that the reason wasn't that much concern about the poor girls
> that were forced to wear them against their will but outrage against
> those bloofdy forreners that dared carry on in a way that was not
> traditional to the outcriers). muslims pointed out that for them it
> was unconstitutional religious discrimination, because lots of
> christian symbols could be seen without causing complaints. since
> this didn't stop the request to ban the islamic symbols, the french
> government decided to ban all religious symbols (otherwise any ban
> would have been thrown out in the courts). i guess you can call this
> democracy in action
No, I call it insane.
> the situation in germany is slightly different, and much more
> hypocritical. in most german states schools are (or were when i lived
> there; in some states you couldn't even graduate from high school if
> you got bad marks in religion) by law christian or even confessional
> schools, with officially sanctioned crucifixes on the class room walls
> and mandatory religious instruction and school prayers. it is exactly
> the same states that are at the forefront of the ban-the-headscarf
> movement
That's bad too.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Headscarves -- way off-topic; was Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <m3oetb6wnz.fsf@bird.agharta.de>
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:01:00 GMT, ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:
> the situation in germany is slightly different, and much more
> hypocritical. in most german states schools are (or were when i
> lived there; in some states you couldn't even graduate from high
> school if you got bad marks in religion) by law christian or even
> confessional schools, with officially sanctioned crucifixes on the
> class room walls and mandatory religious instruction and school
> prayers.
Most German schools? Pardon me, are we talking about the same Germany?
I graduated from high school in 1984 and I never saw a crucifix on the
wall, I never had religious instruction in school (neither mandatory
nor free), and there was no single school subject that was deemed
important enough to prevent people from graduating if they had bad
marks in it as long as their overall score was good enough. This was
one of two public high schools in town (in Lower Saxony) and the other
one wasn't different.
Most schools in Germany are public schools and I'd be /very/ surprised
if there was one where you couldn't graduate with bad marks in
religion.
> it is exactly the same states that are at the forefront of the
> ban-the-headscarf movement
What "ban-the-headscarf movement"? The situation in France is in fact
different but in Germany it was/is about a teacher in a public school
who insisted on wearing a headscarf in front of her class while the
head of the school demanded her to take it off. This went to court and
recently the highest German court decided that she can keep the
headscarf until the federal states ("Bundesl�nder") provide clear
rules as to what is allowed for teachers and what not.
Mind you, this is about a teacher in a public school. If she were
teaching in a private school or if she were working as an architect or
journalist or whatever the whole thing wouldn't have happened at
all. Also, nobody here is trying to prevent school girls from wearing
head scarfs.
Edi.
In article <··············@bird.agharta.de>,
Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> writes:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:01:00 GMT, ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:
>
>> the situation in germany is slightly different, and much more
>> hypocritical. in most german states schools are (or were when i
>> lived there; in some states you couldn't even graduate from high
>> school if you got bad marks in religion) by law christian or even
>> confessional schools, with officially sanctioned crucifixes on the
>> class room walls and mandatory religious instruction and school
>> prayers.
>
> Most German schools? Pardon me, are we talking about the same Germany?
my experience stems from the 1960s (up to early 1970; note "or were
when i lived there"), and i was talking about "in most german states",
which would indicate that it would be regionally clustered. afaik, it
still is true for at least bavaria and baden-wuertemberg)
> I graduated from high school in 1984 and I never saw a crucifix on the
> wall, I never had religious instruction in school (neither mandatory
> nor free), and there was no single school subject that was deemed
> important enough to prevent people from graduating if they had bad
> marks in it as long as their overall score was good enough. This was
> one of two public high schools in town (in Lower Saxony) and the other
> one wasn't different.
so lower saxony isn't one of tose states
> Most schools in Germany are public schools and I'd be /very/ surprised
> if there was one where you couldn't graduate with bad marks in
> religion.
around 1970 there was a court case in hessen where an irate father
sued against the obligatory school prayer in hessian public schools.
the court ruled in his favor. the same month the hessian parliament
passed a new law that changed the term for those schools from "public
schools" to "public christian schools" or "christian public schools"
and reintroduced the morning prayer. in some laender (bavaria)
religion instruction with full grading was mandatory up to grade 13 (i
suspect that nobody would have gotten a 5 or 6 in religion if that
would have prevented him from graduating, but it was a compulsory
subject that was included in the passin/failure regulations)
> ...
hs
--
Not everything that counts can be counted,
not everything that can be counted counts.
A. Einstein
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Headscarves -- way off-topic; was Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <m37jzydjs5.fsf@bird.agharta.de>
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:14:38 GMT, ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:
> my experience stems from the 1960s (up to early 1970; note "or were
> when i lived there")
OK, but you also wrote "the situation in germany IS slightly
different, and much more hypocritical." Your posting would have been
more faithful had you added that you were talking about experiences
you made more than thirty years ago.
So, for those of you who haven't been to Germany lately: We rarely
burn witches nowadays, and the Inquisition only works on official
holidays. It is safe to travel (except maybe for some rural areas) if
you always carry a bible and a crucifix with you. Don't swear if one
of the guys with a sword is nearby, don't talk unless prompted
to. Have a nice stay.
Edi.
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Headscarves -- way off-topic; was Re: GNU CLISP 2.32 released
Date:
Message-ID: <btsp1j$31ic$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"Hartmann Schaffer" <··@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
·······················@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> In article <·················@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> > ...
> > If I have to choose between conservative Islamic parents
> > forcing their (presumably not conservative Islamic) children
> > to wear headscarves, and an atheist state forcing someone
> > else's (in some cases conservative Islamic) children *not*
> > to wear headscarves, then I'll go for the former every time,
>
> frankly, this is a choice i'm not willing to accept. forcing sombody
> to (not) do something against his will is a bad thing, and i see no
> difference whether the force is exercised by the state, parents, or
> bosses (note that i don't say that it always has a bad effect)
There are very few X's such that a statement that "X is bad" is complete by
itself and true.
Parent to 3 year old - "Do not pinch the cat"
Gov't to convicted murderer - "Stay in jail"
Boss to Employee - "Stop grabbing your secretary's ass"
I must reject your unqualified statement that it is bad for anyone to force
anyone else to do anything. And I do believe that to be a reasonable
paraphrase os your completely unqulified statement above. Perhaps there are
a few assumptions in there I don't intuit...?
Freedom is not the simplistic and naively simple thing today's typical
rhetoric assumes.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
> Yep. The philosophy behind is called "enlightenment". You
> might want to check it up: It's actually interesting.
t is a symbol, made w/ orthogonal strokes,
and also a value, at least to interpretive folks.
standing in contrast to nil, so non-scurrilous
(though not constant -- see srfi-50 archives, o ye curious).
would bearing these marks be considered religious?
poor ignorants opiated by elite prestidigitists?
what society could be built from such strange concepts?
what machine could be smelt by taking such wrong steps?
putrescence offends but those so enraged
are lightened by climbing other walls of their cage?
lets just hope three motos aren't circling your head;
if the supports go, you're not only smelly, you're dead.
thi
Michael Livshin wrote:
>
> "Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
>
> > What, exactly, would you be risking by using software whose authors
> > do not self-censor or silence their political or religious views?
>
> it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
> schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
> peculiarity.
if you would like this statement to make sense, you will need to explain what
"banning religious symbols in public schools" was intended to mean. i know of
one case - kopftuecher.germany, with respect to which the logic of a blanket
statement is difficult to follow. are there others?
...
james anderson <··············@setf.de> writes:
> Michael Livshin wrote:
>
>> it the same logic that leads to banning religious symbols in public
>> schools. it seems to be a fundamental European psychological, er,
>> peculiarity.
>
> if you would like this statement to make sense, you will need to
> explain what "banning religious symbols in public schools" was
> intended to mean. i know of one case - kopftuecher.germany, with
> respect to which the logic of a blanket statement is difficult to
> follow. are there others?
I thought the French headscarf debacle is all over the news. perhaps
I'm wrong.
--
Indentation?! -- I will show you how to indent when I indent your
skull!
-- Klingon Programmer
On Jan 8, 2004 at 7:55am, Stefan Scholl wrote:
stesch >The Apache project doesn't have political statements in the FAQ. Or
stesch >radical political statements on the web pages of the main
stesch >developers.
Oh, so I guess you ardently refuse to use any GNU Project software,
right? Have you ever surfed over to Richard M. Stallman's personal
webpages? Or is your definition of 'radical' selective to those who
don't share your views?
There's plenty of commonly-used Open Source software that has ample
political content on their site. All cryptographic websites come to
mind. So are you only using ftp & telnet?
It's silly to boycott software due to the personal beliefs of the
developers. Or is freedom of speech too enlightened of a principle?
Your remark about their FAQ is also uncalled for. FAQ content is
dictated by the author's wish to respond to remarks and questions they
get often. So if people start harrassing them with political
questions/remarks, you can bet that the FAQ will eventually get that
kind of content.
~Tomer Altman
On 2004-01-08 19:29:04, ·······@noshpam.lbl.government wrote:
> It's silly to boycott software due to the personal beliefs of the
> developers. Or is freedom of speech too enlightened of a principle?
By the way: I have installed GNU CLISP on 4 systems. 2 my own, 1
leased, and 1 workstation at work.
* taltman wrote:
> Oh, so I guess you ardently refuse to use any GNU Project software,
> right? Have you ever surfed over to Richard M. Stallman's personal
> webpages? Or is your definition of 'radical' selective to those who
> don't share your views?
Well, over the past couple of years I've certainly decided that I'd
kind of like not to use much OSS if I could avoid it because for many
people it clearly is some kind of religion, and I don't like being
involved with cults, especially ones that do as much damage to
people's minds as this one. I wish I'd seen this 10 years earlier, in
fact.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> that do as much damage to people's minds as this one [OSS]
> I wish I'd seen this 10 years earlier, in fact.
>
Nothing compared to the damage the recent intellectual "property"
(yeah right...) cult is doing to society right now, as far as
I'm concerned. Fucking infofascists.
* David Golden wrote:
> Nothing compared to the damage the recent intellectual "property"
> (yeah right...) cult is doing to society right now, as far as
> I'm concerned. Fucking infofascists.
While I'd hardly condone some of the things that are being done by the
entertainment industry, I think that, as usual, what is happening is
not very well understood. What's *actually* happening, I tink, is
that there is a monopoly (probably technically a cartel) which is
acting in the standard way that monopolies do to screw the users.
This is just the same as in the SW industry of course. If there
wasn't an effective monopoly then there wouldn't be all this IPR
weirdness going on. But no-one has what it takes to break up the
monopoly, it seems.
Of course, as part owner of a small software & training company I know
how important IPR is. I guess that makes me a fascist: I'd better go
out and get a nice uniform and order some gas chambers right away.
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@lostwithiel.cley.com...
>
> Of course, as part owner of a small software & training company I know
> how important IPR is. I guess that makes me a fascist: I'd better go
> out and get a nice uniform and order some gas chambers right away.
Please! You think we don't know about your fleet of Black Helicopters? And
the Ninjas? Don't take us for such fools.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
> Please! You think we don't know about your fleet of Black Helicopters? And
> the Ninjas? Don't take us for such fools.
It's true, I admit it. I used to be Hitler, but now (looks down, long
beard...).
--tim
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> "ace" <··@spam.aol> wrote in message news:<···········@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > Did you guys ever get around to removing the menorah?
>
> No, but they are busy with a special port of CLISP to take advantage
> of some interfaces in the BSD operating system:
>
> mybsdbox:$ clisp
> , ,
> /( )` ooooo o ooooooo ooooo ooooo
> \ \___ / | 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8
> /- _ `-/ ' 8 8 8 8 8 8
> (/\/ \ \ /\ 8 8 8 ooooo 8oooo
> / / | ` \ 8 8 8 8 8
> O O ) / | 8 o 8 8 o 8 8
> `-^--'`< ' ooooo 8oooooo ooo8ooo ooooo 8
> (_.) _ ) /
> `==)-----. `.___/` / o ooooo ooooo oooooo
> `==)---. | `-----' / o 8 8 8 o 8 8
> `==)--. | | __ / __ \ o 8 8 8 8 8 8
> `==)--+=+=+O)))==) \) /==== oooo8oo 8oooo ooooo 8 8
> `==)--' | |`--' `.__,' \ 8 8 8 8 8 8
> `==)----' | | | 8 8 8 o 8 8 8
> `==)-----' \ / 8 ooooo ooooo oooooo
> ______( (_ / \______
> ,' ,-----' | \
> `--{__________) \/
>
>
> Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll 1992, 1993
> Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Marcus Daniels 1994-1997
> Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Pierpaolo Bernardi, Sam Steingold 1998
> Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Sam Steingold 1999-2003
>
>
> [1]>
Ooohhh, garrgh, urrch, mnnmnmn...
Brothers and sisters, give me an amen!
<amen>
I can't hear you!
<AMEN!>
Now, let me tell you, the Looord told me,
<preach it!>
Yes the Loooord told me,
<Amen!>
He told me that the antichrist would come! Can I get an amen?
<AMEN!>
Yes, the antichrist will come in your lifetime!
<Lord help us!> <Save us Lord!>
Yes, he will come, and he will be evil, evil incarnate!
<Oooh my Lord!>
He will come as an angel of light! Well, maybe not exactly an angel
of light, but maybe more like a woodchuck of light. Or maybe his name
will be Chuck. That's it! He will come as Chuck!
<Save us, Lord!>
He will come bearing a Menorah! That's where the light comes from.
<No, Lord>
He will come on your tee-shirts!
<No, Lord!>
He will come on your coffee mugs!
<No, Lord! Not our coffee mugs!>
He will come as a paperweight!
<No, Lord!>
He will come as a plush-toy!
<Save us, Lord! Save our children, Lord!>
He will come preaching peace, love, and rdist!
<Lord help us!>
He will come in your computers!
<Save us Lord!>
He will come in your computer's source code!
<No! No, Lord! Save us!>
He will come!
<Save us!>
He will come with a lisp!
<Amen!>
He will come with many lisps!
<Praise the Lord! Preach it!>
The "Gates" of hell will not stop him!
<Amen! Oh, Lord! Thank you Lord!>
He will burst their balloon!
<Thank you Lord! Amen!>
He will swat the fly from Redmond!
<Praise the Lord! Amen! Thank you, Lord!>
He will swat the bug let in through the Windows!
<Amen! Amen! Thank you, Lord!>
He will roast the penguin!
<Amen! Praise the Lord!>
So what's so bad about this guy again?
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
In the course of making code more readable, performance was
accidentally improved by about 20%. --- From BRL 2.1.23 release notes
Arthur Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
> Make that:
>
> http://sf.net/projects/clisp
>
Nice.
RUN-ALL-TESTS: grand total: 0 errors out of 8,696 tests
I see that there's a TODO item at Savannah to list the missing ANSI
features of clisp, is that still needed?
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 04:45:22 GMT, Billy O'Connor <·······@gnuyork.org> wrote:
> Arthur Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
> I see that there's a TODO item at Savannah to list the missing ANSI
> features of clisp, is that still needed?
I seem to remember that at least ANSI-compliant pretty-printing
support is still missing. As well as some CLOS stuff.
Cheers,
Edi.