rec.arts.books - 20 new messages in 10 topics

rec.arts.books
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Franz Neumann on Carl Schmitt
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/448beaac281290a1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 12:01 am
From: The Other

"Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:

> I'm curious. Have you seen the very interesting and well made BBC
> documentary "The Power of Nightmares"? It was produced by Adam
> Curtis and studies the influence of Leo Strauss on the neocons, and
> of Sayyid Qutb on the Islamic extremists, and draws many interesting
> parallels between them. Here is a short blurb:
>
> "Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were
> born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better
> world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that
> failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way
> that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare
> vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A
> fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and
> authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears
> became the most powerful."

Ah, the neocons again. No, I haven't seen the show. I can't stand
watching the BBC. A lot seems wrong in that paragraph, though. First
of all, neoconservatism largely changed the world in the exact ways it
intended. The aggressive Cold War in the 1980s had a lot to do with
the collapse of the Soviet Union. The neocons weren't the only ones
behind that, but they were a main force, and that was by far the
biggest change they were involved in. Other neocon changes: Welfare
reform significantly reduced the number of people on welfare. The
"broken windows" approach to policing turned New York City around in
the 1990s. In politics, the neocons basically took over the
conservative movement and the Republican Party over the span of a
decade, in the 1980s, to where some of them bragged that
neoconservatism had now become just conservatism. Then of course
there's the disastrous foreign policy after 2001; that undeniably
changed the world in ways the neocons didn't intend. But that was
just one of many neocon campaigns.

I think there's some similarity between neoconservatism and Qutb, but
it shouldn't be overstated. If you remember, the initial
neoconservative explanation for the liberal failure, i.e., for the
failure of LBJ's Great Society programs, was the Burkean idea of
unintended consequences. I doubt if Qutb put anywhere near as much
emphasis on unintended consequences as the neocons did. (The irony of
the neocons' more recent ambitious, Jacobin program to spread
democracy in the Middle East, with its blithe lack of concern for
unintended consequences, was noted at the time.) In the late 1960s
and early 1970s, the neocons did get into the whole culture war thing,
and their fight against post-bourgeois decadence was in fact similar
to Qutb's. But that was only one of several neocon issues. By the
1980s the main culture warriors were in the evangelical right, which
was by then the neocons' coalition partner.

And what's this secret evil that in the neocon vision threatens the
world, anyway? Is it jihad? Radical Islam? No neocon claims those
are secret. Anyway, I agree with the neocons that radical Islam is
organized (though not monolithic) and that it threatens the Western
world, especially Western Europe. Lot's of non-neocons would agree.

> Also, I suppose you already know about Heinrich Meier's book _Carl
> Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue_? Definitely worth
> reading.

I haven't read it, but it seems well regarded. The only thing I read
by Strauss was his "Notes on Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the
Political", which was included in the paperback edition I bought. I
don't think there's much point in my reading Meier's book if I haven't
read Strauss.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 8:41 am
From: "Marko Amnell"

"The Other" <other@address.invalid> wrote in message
lyiqdc2nf3.fsf@circe.aeaea...
> "Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:
>
>> I'm curious. Have you seen the very interesting and well made BBC
>> documentary "The Power of Nightmares"? It was produced by Adam
>> Curtis and studies the influence of Leo Strauss on the neocons, and
>> of Sayyid Qutb on the Islamic extremists, and draws many interesting
>> parallels between them. Here is a short blurb:
>>
>> "Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were
>> born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better
>> world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that
>> failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way
>> that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare
>> vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A
>> fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and
>> authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears
>> became the most powerful."
>
> Ah, the neocons again. No, I haven't seen the show. I can't stand
> watching the BBC.

It's not just a typical BBC documentary. It has been called
"the most important film about the 'war on terrorism' since
the events of September 11" (by The Nation, which was
broadly critical of its contents).

> A lot seems wrong in that paragraph, though. First
> of all, neoconservatism largely changed the world in the exact ways it
> intended. The aggressive Cold War in the 1980s had a lot to do with
> the collapse of the Soviet Union. The neocons weren't the only ones
> behind that, but they were a main force, and that was by far the
> biggest change they were involved in. Other neocon changes: Welfare
> reform significantly reduced the number of people on welfare. The
> "broken windows" approach to policing turned New York City around in
> the 1990s. In politics, the neocons basically took over the
> conservative movement and the Republican Party over the span of a
> decade, in the 1980s, to where some of them bragged that
> neoconservatism had now become just conservatism. Then of course
> there's the disastrous foreign policy after 2001; that undeniably
> changed the world in ways the neocons didn't intend. But that was
> just one of many neocon campaigns.
>
> I think there's some similarity between neoconservatism and Qutb, but
> it shouldn't be overstated. If you remember, the initial
> neoconservative explanation for the liberal failure, i.e., for the
> failure of LBJ's Great Society programs, was the Burkean idea of
> unintended consequences. I doubt if Qutb put anywhere near as much
> emphasis on unintended consequences as the neocons did.

Well, Qutb doesn't talk about unintended consequences in his
best known work _Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq_ (Milestones). Or at least
it is not mentioned in the parts of _Milestones_ I read in an anthology
of writings on Islamic fundamentalism.

> (The irony of
> the neocons' more recent ambitious, Jacobin program to spread
> democracy in the Middle East, with its blithe lack of concern for
> unintended consequences, was noted at the time.) In the late 1960s
> and early 1970s, the neocons did get into the whole culture war thing,
> and their fight against post-bourgeois decadence was in fact similar
> to Qutb's.

That is one of the most interesting aspects of Curtis's film and
is well presented. The documentary is worth seeing even if you
don't agree with Curtis. It's just a well made documentary film.
Television is very rarely this thought-provoking.

> But that was only one of several neocon issues. By the
> 1980s the main culture warriors were in the evangelical right, which
> was by then the neocons' coalition partner.
>
> And what's this secret evil that in the neocon vision threatens the
> world, anyway? Is it jihad? Radical Islam?

The secret evil is Al Qaeda. In the third part of the series
entitled "The Shadows in the Cave" Adam Curtis argues
that there never was a secret global terrorist organisation
named Al Qaeda, but that a myth that it existed was created
after 9/11. To quote from wikipedia:

"The final episode addresses the actual rise of al-Qaeda.
Curtis argues that, after their failed revolutions, bin Laden
and Zawahiri had little or no popular support, let alone a
serious complex organisation of terrorists, and were dependent
upon independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad.
The film instead argues that in order to prosecute bin Laden in
absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, US prosecutors
had to prove he was the head of a criminal organisation responsible
for the bombings. They find a former associate of bin Laden,
Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden was the head
of a massive terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda". With the
September 11th attacks, Neo-Conservatives in the new Republican
government of George W. Bush use this created concept of an
organisation to justify another crusade against a new evil enemy,
leading to the launch of the War on Terrorism."

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

Curtis also claims that there is no evidence that the name
"Al Qaeda" itself was ever used by Islamic extremists
before the 9/11 attacks.

Curtis's argument is not entirely convincing, although he
presents what seems to be credible evidence that aspects
of the Al Qaeda story were made up. One of the people
who has pointed out flaws in the argument is Peter Bergen,
author of _Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of
Osama bin Laden_. I have read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0743234952

Quoting the same wikipedia page again:

"Peter Bergen, writing for The Nation, offered a detailed
critique of the film. Bergen wrote that even if al-Qaeda is
not as organised as the Bush Administration stresses, it is
still a very dangerous force due to the fanaticism of its followers
and the resources available to bin Laden. On Curtis's claim
that al-Qaeda was a creation of neo-conservative politicians,
Bergen said: 'This is nonsense. There is substantial evidence
that Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small
group of like-minded militants, and that the group would
mushroom into the secretive, disciplined organisation that
implemented the 9/11 attacks.'"

In his book, Bergen (who interviewed Osama bin Laden
several times) describes in detail how Al Qaeda was founded
in Afghanistan in 1988. I found this to be one of the most
interesting parts of his book, and it seems that Curtis ignored
this evidence.

In addition, it seems to me that since 9/11, Al Qaeda has
expanded geographically as various groups of Islamic
extremists now wish to associate themselves with Osama bin
Laden. There are now groups that call themselves
"Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" (in Iraq) and "Al Qaeda in
the the Maghrib" (in North Africa). It's not clear how
well connected they are to Osama, presumably still sitting
in his cave in Pakistan, but it is evidence of growth.

Furthermore, certainly the great success of the Taliban
and its Al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan is evidence that
the organisation is alive and well. Barack Obama has
been forced to reconsider his plans to increase the
number of U.S. troops posted to Afghanistan because
the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been so successful in
their attacks on the U.S.-backed government of Afghanistan.
And there is a widespread terror campaign currently
under way in Pakistan by the Taliban (it is not clear
to what extent Al Qaeda is participating in this).

> No neocon claims those
> are secret. Anyway, I agree with the neocons that radical Islam is
> organized (though not monolithic) and that it threatens the Western
> world, especially Western Europe. Lot's of non-neocons would agree.
>
>> Also, I suppose you already know about Heinrich Meier's book _Carl
>> Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue_? Definitely worth
>> reading.
>
> I haven't read it, but it seems well regarded. The only thing I read
> by Strauss was his "Notes on Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the
> Political", which was included in the paperback edition I bought. I
> don't think there's much point in my reading Meier's book if I haven't
> read Strauss.

Well, Strauss is worth reading quite apart from his role as
a possible godfather of the neocon movement. Peter Bergen
claims that Curtis exaggerates this role and that in reality
Albert Wohlstetter was a more important figure in founding
the neoconservative political philosophy. Do you agree with
Bergen about this?

I have not read Leo Strauss widely but I read parts of his
interesting book _Thoughts on Machiavelli_. The first sentence reads:
"We shall not shock anyone, we shall merely expose ourselves to
good-natured or at any rate harmless ridicule, if we profess
ourselves inclined to the old-fashioned and simple opinion
according to which Machiavelli was a teacher of evil."

http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Machiavelli-Leo-Strauss/dp/0226777022#noop

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 11:53 pm
From: The Other

"Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:

> "The Other" <other@address.invalid> wrote in message
> lyiqdc2nf3.fsf@circe.aeaea...
> > ... In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the neocons did get into
> > the whole culture war thing, and their fight against
> > post-bourgeois decadence was in fact similar to Qutb's.
>
> That is one of the most interesting aspects of Curtis's film and is
> well presented. The documentary is worth seeing even if you don't
> agree with Curtis. It's just a well made documentary film.
> Television is very rarely this thought-provoking.

But obviously the similarities are a lot less than the differences.
The neocons in the 1970s and Qutb shared a common enemy, American
post-bourgeois decadence, but the neocons wanted to restore a
bourgeois, secular-friendly "Judeo-Christian" ethic. Qutb didn't.
The over-cited example is the 1950s small-town church social that so
scandalized Qutb with its decadent mixed dancing. But that represents
exactly the bourgeois culture that the neocons wanted to restore. I
don't know what Curtis says, but it would be ridiculous to overlook
the differences between the Islam of Qutb and the American
"Judeo-Christian" whatever of the neocons.

> Well, Strauss is worth reading quite apart from his role as a
> possible godfather of the neocon movement. Peter Bergen claims that
> Curtis exaggerates this role and that in reality Albert Wohlstetter
> was a more important figure in founding the neoconservative
> political philosophy. Do you agree with Bergen about this?

I don't know. I've pretty much said everything I know about the
neocons, which isn't much. You can read the transcript of the Sam
Tannenhaus interview of Paul Wolfowitz for _Vanity Fair_. This
interview was conducted during the Great Straussian Scare of '03.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

Wolfowitz's discussion of Wohlstetter is too long to quote here, but
here are a couple excerpts:

Q: Believe it or not, because this is a feature magazine, I'd like
to ask you a little bit about your background. None of this is
going to be personal. I know that you protect the privacy of your
family so this has really nothing to do with that.

First of all, the question of ideas. That is, is there anything at
all, we talked about this a little off the record, is there
anything at all to the Straussian Connection?

Wolfowitz: It's a product of fevered minds who seem incapable of
understanding that September 11th changed a lot of things and
changed the way we need to approach the world. Since they refused
to confront that, they looked for some kind of conspiracy theory
to explain it.

I mean I took two terrific courses from Leo Strauss as a graduate
student. One was on Montesquieu's spirit of the laws, which did
help me understand our Constitution better. And one was on Plato's
laws. The idea that this has anything to do with U.S. foreign
policy is just laughable.

Q: There is something kind of humorous in it because a few weeks
ago all we heard was he's been the kind of cowboy, rampaging
around the globe looking for evildoers. And now he seems to be in
the vehicle of erudite philosophy.

This is very helpful.

Wolfowitz: It sort of calls to mind the joke about the President
and the Pope are on a boat, and the Pope's hat blows off. The
President says, no, I'll get it for you and walks across the top
of the waves, picks up the hat and walks back across the top of
the waves, hands the hat to the Pope and the next day the
headlines are, "President Bush can't swim." [Laughter]

Q: Let me ask about one other [inaudible], and that's Albert
Wohlstetter. A couple of people, believe me, who are not
[inaudible] at all, say that Wohlstetter was a far-sighted
military strategist whose notions have been about low yield
nuclear weapons that we're hearing about today, and different ways
of fighting wars. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing, zero
sum, no mutually assured destruction. Are there any notions like
that on where the military is today or how you look at --

Wolfowitz: Wohlstetter is a much more relevant figure and it's
interesting too, by the way, that the same fellow who, or one of
the same fellows who discovered the Straussian Conspiracy kind of
throws Wohlstetter in as a Straussian when Wohlstetter was
actually philosophically a student of Quine.

Q: The analytical --

Wolfowitz: Exactly. If there was anything anathema to Leo Strauss
it was analytical philosophy.

[A long discussion of Wohlstetter's influence follows.]

Q: That was seminal.

Wolfowitz: Absolutely seminal. And it derived not from reading
Plato, believe me. Nor did it derive from any ideological
prejudices whatsoever. It derived from saying here's the problem,
look at it factually, see what the questions are that emerged from
the thing itself so to speak -- inductive rather than deductive --
and I suppose that's the difference between ideological thinking
and pragmatic thinking.

Q: Is that true for your own approach as well?

Wolfowitz: Well, it turns out he was a mixture and I think I'm a
mixture. People ask me how do you characterize yourself. I guess
the closest I can come to saying it is I think I'm a practical
idealist. I mean I don't like the caricature Wilsonian view that
says we're going to impose something on the world regardless of
whether it can take in the real world. But I also don't like the
sort of, the kind of pragmatism -- I consider myself pragmatic but
I don't like the kind of pragmatism that sort of stares at people
who hold principles very strongly and think that it's all just a
matter of doing business and being sensible.

You have to be careful about taking Wolfowitz as representative of the
neoconservatives, though. I think Irving Kristol did cite Strauss as
one of his main influences. I guess every reference to Thucydides in
neocon articles - and there are lots of such references - ultimately
points back to Strauss, right? And as you probably know there's also
a long-running debate over whether Strauss was a Straussian.

Here's a pretty funny article by another neocon, Robert Kagan, "I Am
Not a Straussian":

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/656lwsoy.asp?pg=1

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please help me ID this book!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d70edb340a68d46e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 12:34 am
From: Hand-of-Omega

Many years ago, I read a book in class, that I would like to find and
reread. Unfortunately, all I can recall is that it was by a female
author, and two of the characters were a boy named Battle (Jr., I
believe) and a precocious little girl named India.

Oddly, I recall My Antonia and The Awakening, which I read in the same
class, completely. But this book has escaped my recollection. Any help
you can give is most welcome!

Dex

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do You Believe in Free Willie? A Note for the King of Texas
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/0f3e0fb9b893335c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 4:18 am
From: Hal Womack 3-dan

Minutes of the meeting reveal that Kissinger, Koret, Taube, Saban,
Bronfmen, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer & Shorenstein agreed that a
disturbing amount of truth was leaking out to the _goyim_ via the
Internet, especially the Usenet.

So they created a plenitude of shame tags for their disposable
hirelings to use as vomitophones to try to pollute our discourse. One
such of these = { Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> }, usually
operated by "Jim Collier".

Now the iconic moment for this year was the Jews' murder of the two
Rabbo sisters during the Gaza Massacre:

{We spoke to Khaled Abed Rabbo, who witnessed an Israeli soldier
execute his 2-year-old and 7-year-old daughters, and critically injure
a third daughter, Samar, 4-years old, on a sunny afternoon outside his
home. Two other Israeli soldiers were standing nearby eating chips and
chocolates at the time on January 7, 2009. Abed Rabbo recounts
standing in front of the Israeli soldiers with his mother, wife and
daughters for 5 – 7 minutes before one of the soldiers opened fire on
his family.} See #1 below.

Jim Collier would complain to these soldiers' commanding officers or
to Dianne Feinstein or to both that the shooters left the rest of the
Rabbo Family alive. However, assigned psywar ops are available from
the hand of Rahm Israel Emanuel to explain to JC that this
apparent delinquency = a planned anti-morale measure.

We all know the boyish expression of love, "I'd eat a mile of her
shit."
Jim Collier dogs my Usenet track with its nose to the ground, mumbling
out its grumbling brain-farts that so many of us normal folk aka
"gentiles" are getting ourselves ready to sweep aside the JAPE (#4)
shards so that we can establish JOE or "Justice On Earth". This
blessed condition will result in our sending JC and its kiddie-
killing, Treasury-looting, lie-screaming masters mentioned above --
sending this kabal, I say, down into the dungeons which they have so
richly earned.

.........................................................

#1.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/nlg02092009.html

{February 9, 2009
A Report from Gaza
Strong Indications of Israeli War Crimes

By NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

Gaza City.

We are a delegation of 8 American lawyers, members of the National
Lawyers Guild in the United States, who have come here to the Gaza
Strip to assess the effects of the recent attacks on the people, and
to determine what, if any, violations of international law occurred
and whether U.S. domestic law has been violated as a consequence. We
have spent the last five days interviewing communities particularly
impacted by the recent Israeli offensive, including medical personnel,
humanitarian aid workers and United Nations representatives.}

I have previously criticized the abuse of the word "execute" in the
narration. Correct, of course = "murder".
........................................................................

#2.)

http://tinyurl.com/y88nbru

Newsgroups: ba.politics, ba.broadcast, ba.singles, ba.general,
alt.california
From: Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.wom...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Feb 20 2009 9:01 am
Subject: Re: The usual left-wing agitprop promoted bu our resident
anti-Semite...

{I have already stated correct doctrine on this piece of standard
Jewish rhetoric, to wit: The old saying of "love the sinner and hate
the sin" be correct.
We all should love everybody, even the very worst
murderers and liars like Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, the
Sulzbergerz and our own Dan Kimmel here on this thread laboring in the
hopeless effort of defending the joojingoes or JJ's criminal cause in
the face of informed & honorable people. We should show our love for
dangerous criminals --of which, in our post-Nuremberg Tribunal era,
tyrants are the supreme example known to man-- by
defeating, arresting, interrogating, trying, convicting and punishing
them.

And we should love everybody else first and better.
Love = the great dominating force of the kozmos
and hate's love shadow. Without hating murder,
how could we love people?

A case for meditation:

On October 4, 2003, Hanadi Tayseer Jaradat, a 29 year old attorney
from Jenin detonated a bomb in a restaurant in Haifa, Israel killing
herself, 19 Israelis and injuring 50 others. Hanadi Tayseer Jaradat
wrapped her waist with explosives and fought her way past a security
guard at a restaurant. Hanadi Tayseer Jaradat was a single woman whose
younger brother Fadi, a 25-year-old, and older cousin, 34-year-old
Salah had been
killed by Israeli forces in the raid on Jenin in June of 2003. Her
family said she did not tell anyone where she was going and they
assumed she was on her way to the law office in Jenin where she
worked.
http://www.aztlan.net/index.html "Palestinian Women Martyrs Against
the Israeli Occupation"

So in a certain sense, I will glory in the title of
"hatemonger". Precisely in order to improve our love for each other,
Americans and all of our fellow
Earthlings need to begin to hate the crime of murder much more
vigorously than heretofore. Let us indeed preach hatred of murder. Let
us stir up our spirits and invigorate our intellects to reach the
sacred, revolutionary goal of world justice under law.}
........................................
#3.) {Results 1 - 10 of about 101 for "hal womack" stratum} from the
Google Groups Page search.
..........................................................
#4.) = "Jewish-American Planetary Empire", as many readers will
remember already.

========================
On Nov 20, 6:33 am, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:55 am, rmjon23 <rmjo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I very eagerly look forward to arriving home from work, so I
> > can free willy.
>
> So to speak, heh, heh.
>
> I don't think Womack has ever had a significant other
> with whom he could free his little William. I could
> be wrong, and I wouldn't *mind* being wrong. But
> in a society that values adult autonomy above
> nearly all other social values to the point that
> involunatary institutional care is no longer an
> option, he's what you occasionally get.
>
> Were we better off before they turned
> the nutcases loose? Were the nutcases
> better off? Boy, the jury's out on that one.
>
> There are more of his kind on the coasts,
> the West coast in particular. Until
> a few years ago, I'd just assumed L.A.
> was like the rest of the nation. (There
> are more of him on the streets in L.A.
> than in San Francisco by a long shot.)
> It's not that I didn't know royal
> palms don't line the streets of Emporia,
> Kansas. But so much of L.A. was
> derived from Chicago, and Chicago
> is populated by who else?, people
> of its Midwest hinterland naturally.
> You would sort of think therefore
> that Angelenos are "just folks" like
> people who live in Des Moines. But
> it turns out that the only Demoinians,
> (or whatever the fuck they're called),
> who migrate to L.A. were crazies
> at home.
>
> I make an exception for Long Beach
> which is not called "Des Moines
> by the Sea" for nothing, a term
> which is not met as a compliment
> to either Long Beach or to Des Moines!
> And Long Beach isn't where you find your
> Womack. He's on Hollywood Blvd
> and anywhere along the entire length
> of Santa Monica Blvd. He's on Pico.
> Barrington. Venice Blvd. He's your next
> door neighbor in Mar Vista who hears your ham
> antenna rotating in the night and thinks you're
> exposing the neighborhood to risk by
> talking with Martians. In the morning,
> you reassure your curious neighbor
> that the Solar System Federation has
> banned domestic mischief by members in
> other members' states. It's easy for you
> to do and it's so important to her peace
> of mind.
>
> Womack is a Westside guy in spirit
> for sure. I'm a Westside guy and
> I know the 'hood.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 11:41 am
From: Stratum101

On Nov 22, 6:18 am, Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.wom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Minutes of the meeting reveal that Kissinger, Koret, Taube, Saban,
> Bronfmen, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer & Shorenstein agreed that a
> disturbing amount of truth was leaking out to the _goyim_ via the
> Internet, especially the Usenet.
>
> So they created a plenitude of shame tags for their disposable
> hirelings to use as vomitophones to try to pollute our discourse. One
> such of these = { Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> }, usually
> operated by "Jim Collier".
>
> Now the iconic moment for this year was the Jews' murder of the two
> Rabbo sisters during the Gaza Massacre:

Let's see. Catholics murdered Huey Long, John Kennedy, and
six million Jews. The latter murders were also committed by
a few Lutherans, but Catholics and people raised Catholic
made up the bulk of the South German movement called
the National Socialist German Workers Party,
commonly known by the phonetic spelling of the first
two syllables of "National" in German. (An English language
group might have been called "the Nashies". The Gnashies
would also be apt.)

The poster, a known homicidal maniac, was raised Catholic.

I have no animus toward Catholics, except ones mentioned
above and people like them.

Most of the great chefs are Catholic, with the
notable exception of Wolfgang Puck, whose tastes
are catholic in the common adjective sense but lack
greatness. Most of the popes have been Catholic,
except for one or two Jewish ones. The popes are a
more mixed bag than the chefs. I can attest at least
one lapsed Catholic woman is good in bed, but I have
not sampled more of the tribe and am in no position
to make a sweeping judgement.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Seven Basic Plots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/cbb217ac2d077860?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 6:32 am
From: ZerkonXXXX

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:02:40 +0000, Ed Cryer wrote:

> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z@erkonx.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.11.19.18.36.02@erkonx.net...
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:08:59 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The Basic Meta-plot
>>
>> Conflict
>
> Can you name any great work of literature that consists of just
> conflict?
> I think not. You need some resolution of the conflict; some goal, some
> way out of the fighting.
> Tolstoy analyses this in detail at the end of War and Peace. What
> persists? What comes out of it all? What wins?

I do not disagree with you here exactly but ....

Resolution needs a conflict. Resolution marks the end of the plot. To put
it dramatically, the death of the story

Plot conflict however does not need to be resolved for a plot to exist.
It may not make for a great work of literature but it trumps resolve as a
more essential plot element.

In tragedy, a classic resolve is death which presents a conflict with a
desired outcome even if the conflict of the plot is resolved. Resolve
many times being everyone in the conflict gets kabonged.

"Grapes Of Wrath" did not end with a way out of the fight. The resolve
presenting a victory of hope and human spirit to continue the struggle.
The conflict in "Moby Dick" was resolved by simply killing off "all save
one" who would do conflict. In "Lord Of The Flies" the conflict was only
resolved by the deus ex machina of the adults which heightened the nature
of the story's conflict. In "Romeo and Juliette", "Lear" and "Hamlet" the
only real resolve, other than body litter, is sorrow.

So I think in many great works the fact that conflict lingers after the
resolve is exactly why they have become great.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "In Cold Blood" - the Clutter murders, 50 years later
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/bf772fd1e7a9a6aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 9:02 am
From: "Marko Amnell"

"Joan in GB-W" <jjkreus@aol.com> wrote in message
7mk0pmF3i0js9U1@mid.individual.net...

> I read "Answered Prayers" a month or so ago and did not like it. It is
> three chapters long and not all that coherent . . . to my way of thinking.
> Capote used some actual names for characters and made-up names for others.
> The last section dealt with the famous Ann Woodward case. Dominick Dunn's
> "The Two Mrs. Grenville's" also deals with the Woodward case and that was
> a book I liked better. Unfortunately for Truman, by writing "Answered
> Prayers," he immediately became persona non grata with the very people he
> was writing about and the crowd he most admired and craved acceptance
> from..
>
> The title refers to a quotation from St. Teresa . . . answered prayers
> cause more tears than those that remain unanswered.

ObBook. Tears and Saints, by E.M. Cioran

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2012
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/5b9979a004e3f392?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 9:16 am
From: "Marko Amnell"

"Stratum101" <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
a02ced92-8226-4b8e-b76f-6d83ba8b3b10@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> The Chron (_San Francisco Chronicle_) reviews "2012" the film:
>
> "Only an audience that feels invulnerable can enjoy watching on
> screen the wholesale destruction of its civilization and not take
> it as a threat. A cloud has lifted. It's safe to be happy and brainless
> again. '2012' may be Hollywood's first post-post-9/11 movie."
>
>
> See SFGate at
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/13/MV161AICV3.DTL

The quote is interesting and the film may indeed
signal some kind of change in the collective
American psyche (it was the number one movie
at the box office), but I am sure you are aware that
this is one of the few positive reviews of the movie.

I watched 2012 and thought that, as a whole, it was
very silly and superficial. There was a missed
opportunity to address the issue of what it would
mean if nearly everyone on Earth suddenly died.
There are examples of interesting doomsday
films, such as The Quiet Earth.

The only enjoyable parts of 2012 are the special
effects of entire cities collapsing. Am I the only
one who thought that the depiction of skyscrapers
collapsing slowly, with great billowing clouds of
dust, must have been influenced by video footage
of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center?
Apart from these special effects, there were a few
laughs, such as the scene where California governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger says on TV that the worst
earthquakes are over and is interrupted by a massive
tremor that destroys all of California. The shot of the
Queen of England, her corgis barking loudly, rushing
into one of the arks that survive the apocalypse, was
also funny.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 10:13 am
From: "Marko Amnell"

The whole New Age fear of the world coming
to an end in 2012 seems to me to have odd
affinities to Lovecraft (discussed in another thread
in RAB). For example, Michael Tsarion's
"Origins and Oracles" film series seems to have
borrowed heavily from the plot of "The Call of Cthulhu"...

"We discover that earth's crime-soaked history has
been manipulated by powerful secret societies with
bloodline connections to ancient alien visitors who
crossed their own DNA with that of earth's indigenous
inhabitants. According to Michael Tsarion's astonishing
thesis, some of these original 'Fallen Angels' are secretly
interred beneath the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in
other locations around the globe. These 'undead' vampiristic
kings of old have been feeding off the death and mayhem,
the pain and fear of human beings for millennia and
their servants, upon the earth's surface, have orchestrated
wars, assassinations, and a climate of perversity and
debauchery to feed their dark masters soon to arise again
from their unholy repose. This arising is forced due to
the approach of powerful constellational alignments and
the coming of an 'Age of Revealing' referred to in ancient
Maya texts, and in the Book of Revelations."

http://rarbg.com/torrents/filmi/download/8116810e02032a944a4b122f07cf88b2f72ddd41/torrent.html

I wonder if Tsarion is aware of this similarity...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 10:32 am
From: Stratum101

On Nov 22, 11:16 am, "Marko Amnell" <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Stratum101" <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
>
> a02ced92-8226-4b8e-b76f-6d83ba8b3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Chron (_San Francisco Chronicle_) reviews "2012" the film:
>
> > "Only an audience that feels invulnerable can enjoy watching on
> > screen the wholesale destruction of its civilization and not take
> > it as a threat. A cloud has lifted. It's safe to be happy and brainless
> > again. '2012' may be Hollywood's first post-post-9/11 movie."
>
> > See SFGate at
> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/13/MV161AICV...
>
> The quote is interesting and the film may indeed
> signal some kind of change in the collective
> American psyche (it was the number one movie
> at the box office), but I am sure you are aware that
> this is one of the few positive reviews of the movie.

I think we can take as given that it's extremely trashy.
The SFGate piece in effect calls it campy. (The special
effects are pretty good.) Brainlessness as high camp
might be worth exploring.

You'll notice there isn't a single mention of Dallas
in the film. So the Dallas Morning News didn't like it.
Not one bit. In the Fort Worth Star Telegram, it's
a different story:

"... and not one mention of Dallas. Hah!"

(I made that up.)

> There are examples of interesting doomsday
> films, such as The Quiet Earth.

Heard of it, never seen it. I just read the Wikipedia
article on it and think I might hunt it down. I see
it's not in the Dallas Public Library DVD collection
which is pretty good and is tiding me over, with an
occasional guest viewer, while I'm ensconced here.
One of the few diverting luxuries I've purchased
was a 26-in flat screen with built-in DVD player
at Best Buys mostly to watch IFC, Book Weekend
on C-SPAN2, the Dallas-Ft Worth PBS channel,
and an occasional something on TCM. I did not
have any TV for five months and didn't miss it.
Internet radio is hard to beat.

On that subject, the Dallas cinema scene
is okay. Probably good as Southern
cities go. It's not like L.A. with a zillion
cinemas. (But then L.A. fell into the
sea.) Got the usual well-stocked Borders
and B&Ns everywhere (and that's *all*
it's got) and one chain of half-decent
new/used bookstores called Half Price
Books, which is heaquarted in Dallas.

I'm to go to the Half Price HQ store in a couple
of hours where our little Mensa subgroup will be
discussing _Car Sagan: A Life_ by
Keay Davidson, which I recommended.
The store makes a community room
available. The establishment is a
money maker by the way, and that
has to warm the heart of any
book lover.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 11:58 pm
From: The Other

"Marko Amnell" <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> writes:

> "Stratum101" <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
> a02ced92-8226-4b8e-b76f-6d83ba8b3b10@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > The Chron (_San Francisco Chronicle_) reviews "2012" the film:
> >
> > "Only an audience that feels invulnerable can enjoy watching on
> > screen the wholesale destruction of its civilization and not take
> > it as a threat. A cloud has lifted. It's safe to be happy and brainless
> > again. '2012' may be Hollywood's first post-post-9/11 movie."
> >
> > See SFGate at
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/13/MV161AICV3.DTL
>
> The quote is interesting and the film may indeed signal some kind of
> change in the collective American psyche....

In the 1950s, sci-fi movies like _Godzilla_, _The Day of the
Triffids_, etc., were supposed to be evidence of Cold War insecurity
and vulnerability. Now the same kind of movie is evidence of security
and invulnerability. Whatever.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: David Irving Speaks In Chicago 11/23
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/b95e346189f9d737?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 9:36 am
From: "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"

Hal Womack 3-dan <hal.womack@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b1957576-1f00-4420-a97f-6e62b40fea49@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

> COURTESY CROSSPOST & COMMENT
>
> By Hal Womack 3-dan
> http://www.myspace.com/halwomack
> http://tinyurl.com/8fp6zw
>
> http://www.fpp.co.uk/
>
> {Chicago
> Monday, November 23, 7 pm. The talk is about Hitler's favorite
> field
> marshal, Rommel: Was he a traitor, or not?
>
> Indianapolis: Sunday, November 22, 6 pm}
>
> {Results 1 - 10 of about 66,900 for "hard to keep a good man down"}
> Google Web search.
>
> David Irving ranks as one of Earth's greatest living historians and
> certainly at the top of the heap WRT Hitler's Third Reich
> (1933-45). His visit & speech Monday 23 November will be a precious
> honor for the City of Chicago.
>
> The 71 year-old Mr.Irving has a handshake like a polite bulldozer (and
> I'm a rather large chap myself). 'Twould be wrong to infer from this
> remark that he's trying at all to be jock-pushy, rather simply that
> when one grasps his hand in greeting, one realizes its quite unusual
> strength. I had the occasion to learn this fact when meeting D.I. at
> his banquet in San Francisco last July 23rd. At that point he had
> already given his talk, which had demonstrated in the most natural &
> interesting manner his detailed grasp of original documents down to
> the page #'s when responding to questions from the attendees. His
> original research into Jewish metamarketing strategy for their world-
> conquering "Holocaust (tm)" psywar campaign, which was brought up by a
> question in passing, also added to the memorable quality of the
> evening, as I have discussed previously*.
>
> An Austrian appellate court released D.I. in 2006 after 400 days of
> strict solitary confinement on the charge of having given a lecture by
> invitation to university students in 1989 against the wishes of the
> Jews.
>
> Yes, the same Jews who at the beginning of this year slew
> some 1400 helpless prisoners in the Gaza Massacre, including 300+
> children. And this same Kabal of world-bestriding looters, liars &
> killers are using one of their front groups masked as "Anti-Racist
> Action** to lauch physical attacks against Mr.Irving's appearances in
> the US, with the connivance of local "law-enforcement" (laughingly so-
> called) officials and the kept local propaganda media, very much
> including the faux "Indymedia". The Jews now define a "fascist" as
> anyone who objects to paying for their murdering children by the
> truckload --or by the cityful. Similarly, they define an "anti-Semite"
> as anyone who dares to resist paying for their slaughter of Semites,
> in which last category Arabs outnumber Jews by more than 10 to 1.
>
> David Irving might be called the last of the old school British
> Imperialists, as sharply distinguished from the Tony Blair school of
> JAPE jackals. (That's "Jewish-American Empire".)
> D.I's announced concluding lecture title for his U.S. tour betrays his
> idiosyncratic accent. Any thoughtful & courageous reader of this post
> in Chicago would be wrong to let herself be put off by this particular
> conceit, as long as she does have some personal interest in the Atomic
> War, as I call WW2.
>

David Irving deserves a Nobel Peace Prize a lot more than Bammer or the
Gorester.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 11:33 pm
From: Hal Womack 3-dan

Preach the word!

=====================
On Nov 22, 9:36 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >http://www.fpp.co.uk/

> David Irving deserves a Nobel Peace Prize a lot more than Bammer or the
> Gorester.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Books That Founded D&D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/8ba57c69243a3499?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 6:29 pm
From: "Endymion9"

"Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Endymion9 wrote:
>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until I
>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always
>> grateful to D&D for that.
>
> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard of,
> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>

Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several of
Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber. Whereas
Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the Mouser
can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and Lieber's humor
are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love both kinds.
Don't prefer one over the other.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 6:44 pm
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan )

In article <iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Endymion9 <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until I
>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always
>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>>
>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard of,
>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>
>
>Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several of
>Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber. Whereas
>Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the Mouser
>can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and Lieber's humor
>are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love both kinds.
>Don't prefer one over the other.
>

Well, certainly they didn't take themselves very seriously, but they
*were* pretty good swordsmen..

Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 9:34 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"

Endymion9 wrote:
> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>>> until I began playing D&D and heard that those books were an
>>> influence. Immediately went out and read the entire series and
>>> loved them. Always grateful to D&D for that.
>>
>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>> heard of, and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>
>
> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
> several of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading
> Lieber. Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself,
> Fafyhrd or the Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by
> themselves.

You are misremembering. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are, in Leiber's
own words, "the two greatest swordsmen ever to be in this or any other
universe of fact or fiction."

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 11:19 pm
From: Juho Julkunen

In article <hed6sp$2am$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Schilling
(mscottschilling@hotmail.com) says...
> Endymion9 wrote:
> > "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Endymion9 wrote:
> >>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
> >>> until I began playing D&D and heard that those books were an
> >>> influence. Immediately went out and read the entire series and
> >>> loved them. Always grateful to D&D for that.
> >>
> >> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
> >> heard of, and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
> >>
> >
> > Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
> > several of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading
> > Lieber. Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself,
> > Fafyhrd or the Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by
> > themselves.
>
> You are misremembering. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are, in Leiber's
> own words, "the two greatest swordsmen ever to be in this or any other
> universe of fact or fiction."

Which is plainly absurd, as neither of them is the greatest swordsman
on at least two planets.

--
Juho Julkunen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: INDIA SAYS "Fuck You" To Global Warming INDUSTRY! (So Do We!)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d161d1e5dcce849c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 7:59 pm
From: "Arindam Banerjee"

The reason why Indian glaciers are not melting and glaciers in North America
and the West in general are melting can be boiled down to just this fact:

THERE ARE FAR FEWER CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTING AEROPLANES FLYING OVER THE
HIMALAYAS

What is most obvious, here, is how the Western scientists bully, ignore and
demean non-Western scientists - I mean, those among them who do not lick
their boots (such as I). My work (based upon finding an incontrovertible
and natural mathematical equation liking mass and energy) debunks Einstein's
bullshit theories. It is showing that the law of conservation of energy is a
special case. And the new law of conservation of mass and energy is
bollocks. It has been widely accepted by many genuine people including true
scientists (not only from India) as being true, subject to experimental
validity. Now, with the recent experimental proof of non-reactive forces in
the electromagnetic rail-gun (to the force on the departing projectile there
is no countering force in the opposite direction, only orthogonally to the
rail spacing supports) my theories are perfectly validated.

My work will lead to the creation of vimans, which will lead humanity to the
stars. But do Western/Westernised scientists/bigwigs want to hear about it?
No! Why? Not just because they are racists and bigots, concerned about
their salaries and pensions primarily. It is also because they do not wish
to look like the most absurd nincompoops for blindly jabbering incredible
einsteinian nonsense for decades. Unfortunately for them, the power of
Usenet and Internet is such, they are in an unenviable situation so far as
the opinion of all future generations is concerned.

Nevertheless, for the present these people have all the money, power and
prestige. They will do their best to protect same. They will not listen to
new proposals to green the earth, which could easily be done with my
invention "The Hydrogen Transmission Network".

They and their masters will continue to pollute the earth, by flying high in
the most abominable human creation, the carbon-dioxide producing aeroplance.
While talking loudly about environmental concerns, they will do their best
to screw up the environment, thus. Unless the younger generation takes a
firm stand, there is no hope for the planet. And their future, too. Do
they really want to live in a hot stuffy world of concrete, with dead seas
and lands, no wildlife at all - only pornography and various sorts of
diseases and whining, laced with the most sickening kind of "humor"? Right
now the abominable media is doing its best to promote fatness - it is only a
question of time before they will try to give the message that all wildlife
is perfectly useless, and the only useful animals are those we find on our
plates. Do we want our future generation to be lazy fatarses - to evolve
into hippos and finally whales?

Yes, about global warming. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - this
everyone agrees. It always sinks, it cannot rise up on its own. Thus all
the carbon dioxide produced on the earth, stays near the earth. If their is
plant life around its production, it will get absorbed by plant life, and we
will have more greenery. However, when Carbon Dioxide is produced in the
high stratosphere (and this is exactly what the jet engines do, and there
are so many and increasing numbers of them) then the Carbon Dioxide forms
there - at high altitudes. It will take a while coming down to Earth, and
in the meantime it will create the greenhouse effect. That is, the heat
from the Earth instead of escaping to Space will be bounced back, and there
will be higher temperatures.

So in those lands where jet planes fly the most, there is the most aerial
pollution from carbon dioxide, and the most harmful climatic changes.

There is a way out, a marvellous way out. That is, to develop a new kind of
engine, the Internal Force Engine, based upon my new and correct physics.
That will make possible not just travel on Earth much faster and safer, but
also non-polluting. Yes, and travel to the Moon will be only a matter of
hours! And from there, to the rest of the universe.

I do hope the young at least will listen...

Fight the Garg...the Garg...the Abominable Garg!

Arindam Banerjee.
Hampton Park, Australia.

"James Fenimore" <slipuvalad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b304ac05-c215-49ee-8435-4301f2edbea2@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> "India challenges Western data linking climate change, Himalayan melt"
>
> By Rama Lakshmi
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Sunday, November 22, 2009
>
>
>
> NEW DELHI -- As countries around the world prepare to flex their
> negotiating muscles at next month's climate-change summit in
> Copenhagen, India has begun to question the Western model of computing
> global warming statistics.
>
> Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a report last week that
> says there is no conclusive evidence that climate change has caused
> the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The report says that not all of
> the glaciers are receding at alarming rates and that a few are even
> advancing.
>
> The report, an analysis of data from the past four decades, is part of
> India's efforts to produce a body of indigenous research assessments
> on the subject.
>
> "So far, we have been depending on research conducted by the West on
> what is happening to our glaciers and environment," he said after
> releasing the report, which was prepared by a former scientist with
> the Geological Survey of India and included a disclaimer that it did
> not necessarily reflect the government's view.
>
> "There is an urgent need to have our own studies by our scientists,"
> he said.
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, has said
> that the Himalayan glaciers are receding "faster than in any other
> part of the world" and are likely to disappear by 2035 if current
> rates of depletion continue. The panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri,
> dismissed the Indian report as "schoolboy science" that has yet to be
> authenticated by peer review, news services reported.
>
> Ramesh has said that much of the information derived from Western
> sources is "biased." He announced that India would set up 15 new
> weather stations to study long-term temperature data and would work
> with the Indian Space Research Organization for satellite mapping of
> glaciers.
>
> But many Indian environmentalists said they were confused by the
> report and the timing of its release, just weeks before the global
> climate meeting.
>
> "Climate change is an intensely political matter, and the science is
> contentious. It is very important that Indian scientific institutions
> get their act together. Local changes cannot always be caught by
> global scientific models," said Sunita Narain, director of New Delhi's
> Center for Science and Environment. "But I am unable to understand why
> the minister released the glacier report now. And if it is not climate
> change that is causing the glaciers to recede, then what is causing
> it?"
>
> The report does not answer that question. However, it says the
> Himalayan glaciers do not exhibit "an abnormal annual retreat of the
> order that some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland" are reported to have
> shown.
>
> In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, which seeks to develop a
> framework to slow global warming, India has said that the heaviest
> burden should fall on the nations that caused the problem and can
> afford the changes.
>
> India, which has become the world's fifth-largest producer of
> greenhouse gases in recent years, has offered modest domestic goals
> for emission cuts. The efforts would not be open to international
> verification.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=Rama%20%20Lakshmi&

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sa-Rah! Sa-RAH! How Dubya Gave Dummies a Bad Name.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/676d72a978192f13?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 10:57 pm
From: Just Me

There are those, both liberal and conservative who see Sarah Palin as
being some kind of dummy, but what kind of dummy is it they suppose to
see in her? Would it be the G.W. Bush style of Yale and Harvard
educated dummy, or the Southwest Texas State Teachers College brand
that distinguished the intellectual background of Lyndon Baines
Johnson? Or what of the grand style of Give 'Em Hell dumb-bell
credentials that were those of Harry S. Truman, the only Chief
Executive in the White House since Grover Cleveland who never
graduated from college?

Is it not about time we should ask just what sort of dummy we are
looking for in a president?

Clearly, you'd have to be a dummy who is a disgrace to every other
dummy on earth not to know the deep abyss of difference that yawns
between a dummy the like of G.W. Bush and the kind of alleged dummy so
many suppose to see in Sarah Palin. You can rightly say that the
glaring contrast consists in the difference between knowing what you
think and the opposite of that which was always the case with Bush.
From his first day on the campaign trail to his last in office, Bush
was being handled, molded, shaped and prepped by that clique of dumb
like a fox operatives who had promoted his candidacy from the
beginning. He was a completely malleable blob of silly putty without a
thought or conviction of his own, which of course accounted for
greatness of his appeal to the RNC.

Obviously, Sarah Palin is the direct opposite of G.W. Bush because she
knows what she thinks, and thinks that she knows what she thinks is
what she knows, and is worth knowing, worth putting out front and
running on as a political figure. The McCain campaign operatives had
a terrible time trying to manage Sarah, accusing her of having "gone
rogue, as she followed the inspiration of her own political lights.

People on the left are somehow convinced that whatever Sarah Palin
thinks, or knows, or supposes to know is all dummy stuff. She
champions energy independence by increased exploration and drilling of
oil. According to the Left, that is what a dummy wants to do. Those
not on the left are certain that liberals and progressives, being
lobotomized by their environmentalist ideology of solar pie in the sky
in the bye and bye, are so damned dumb about energy that not a one
among them would be qualified to run for the post of holding up a mud
fence.

So chalk off item #1 from the bullet points on Sarah Palin's alleged
dummy list.

According to all the "intelligence" on the pro-choice Left, a human
embryo is not a 'viable' (living) human organism, so far as killing it
should then rationally be viewed as homicide. Sarah Palin, from her
pro-life position says that a human embryo is human, and is alive. And
since nothing could be politically "dumber" than to speak an obscenity
like that to the horrified face of the Left; in the view of the Left,
bullet point #2 should remain on the dummy list for Sarah Palin. If
instead, not only do you think, but KNOW that "human" means human, and
'viable' means able to live, and "homicide" means "man-killing", then
the Left loses one more bullet point in the campaign to make a dummy
of Sarah Palin, as they must admit that her position is logical; while
that of the Left, were it not so dishonest, must otherwise appear to
be so dumb as it looks to any rational mind.

But it takes a lot of complicated brain work to justify dishonest
dogma, and for those who admire such stuff it is easily mistaken for a
sophistication of thought! And whether the sophistry comes of the
erudite vocabulary of pro-choice shibboleths on the left, or the plain
spoken monosyllabic anti-Darwin polemics on the Right, it all comes
off sounding like rhetoric of none but the holiest, most passionate
content at both ends of the spectrum. And that's what's so dumb about
it, emotion from the gut posing for brains.

On the subject of evolution, Sarah is strictly from the fundamentalist
pew, refusing to think people can be evolved from the apes. An
astonishing opinion for Sarah to hold as she stands there like Dorothy
clicking the heels of her ruby slippers in full close-up view of that
screaming, chattering horde of flying monkeys always descending upon
her on orders of the Wicked Witch of the Left. How can humans be
evolved from the monkeys? Sarah, dear? Truly, open your eyes and
see!

So, as to Bullet Point #3 on the Sarah Palin dummy list, it must alas
stay there, waiting upon the day that some wise and patient Catholic
or Episcopalian gets her sat down for a good talking to. I once
managed to perform such a miracle upon the mind of an evangelical gal
pal, without harm to a single hair of her faith. Indeed, if anything,
she found the more essential core of her beliefs quite somewhat
strengthened, now that her faith was no longer made so difficult to
maintain, as against so irrational and needless a strain. Also, she no
longer finds it necessary to look down her nose upon any monkeys, not
yet evolved into a Democrat.

In the end, nothing can be quite so clear as the truth that ideology
makes dummies of us all, whether it blinds the eye to the evidence and
proof of evolution, or the critical, immediate need for increased
domestic oil production and an expansion of nuclear power.
Environmentalists are fundamentalists of the Left no different than
the anti-Darwin bible thumping dummies on the right. It is the same
irrational mentality that makes sacrifice of common sense for sake of
a holy cause.

Good ol' Harry Truman who never got through any more than two years of
law school goes down in History as one of our greatest presidents,
praised and honored for his good, solid common sense. If there's one
thing American History goes to prove, it is not rocket science, being
President of the United States, and whatever it is that it does take
to make for an Eisenhower or a Harry Truman, there's just a whole lot
of people out there in the nation's heartland who are convinced that
Sarah's got it. They say, "She's like us." I can think of no higher
qualification than that.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Sonia Choudhary

Author & Editor

Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.

Currentgk

rec.arts.books - 20 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Popular Posts

Follow on Facebook

Populer Posts

Blogger news

Total Pageviews

Contact Form