Datasets:

FredZhang7

/

all-scam-spam

like 6

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Probably because we have this pesky 1st Amendment thing here. Still, lots of us in the States have developed a disturbing tendency to shout down or (in recent years) shackle in legal BS opinions, thoughts, and individual behaviors we don't agree with. You can just ignore it if you wish. But I must feel obligated to defend to the death your right to do so. Chuck On Monday, September 16, 2002, at 06:54 AM, Robert Harley wrote: The usual crud. Why do morons ranting and beating their chests in the National Review (or similar rags) merit FoRKing?

Re: Slaughter in the Name of God On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 11:16, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > >>>>> "J" == Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org> writes: > > J> What about Tibetan Buddhism BTW? They seem like an awfully > J> nice bunch of chaps (and chapesses). > > Yes, them too. When wolves attack their sheep, they coral the wolf > into a quarry and then throw rocks from the surrounding cliffs so > that "no one will know who killed the wolf" > > In Samskar, before the Chinese arrived, there had not been a killing > in over 2000 years, and the last recorded skirmish, over rights to > a water hole, had happened several generations ago. I'm skeptical. One of the many perversions of modern civilization is the fictitious rendering of various peoples, frequently to the point where the fiction is more "real" than the reality. You see it over and over again in history: The Primitive People pull a fast one on Whitey The Junior Anthropologist, playing to all the prejudices of Whitey (who only became Junior Anthropologists to support personal ideologies), and before you know it the charade takes on a life of its own which the Primitive People are compelled to perpetuate. Worse, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary with some basic scholarship, the facts have a hard time competing with the ideologically pleasing fiction that is already firmly entrenched. And many peoples (e.g. American Indians) develop a profit motive for maintaining and promoting the myth in popular culture. I'm far more inclined to believe that people is people, no matter where you are on the planet. The only time you see any anomalies is when you have a self-selecting sub-population within an otherwise normal population, which is hardly a fair way to look at any major population. -James Rogers jamesr@best.com

Re: The Big Jump > All else being equal, the terminal velocity is inversely proportional to the > square root of air density. Air density drops off pretty quickly, and I > really should be doing something other than digging up the math for that. I > think it involves calculus to integrate the amount of mass as the column of > the atmosphere trails off. Chemistry types have a method for dealing with this question without dragging in the calculus: Suppose an atmosphere to be mainly affected by gravity, resulting in the potential energy for a mass M to be linear in height h: Mgh. What relative concentrations will we have when two different packets of air are in equilibrium? If they are at the same height, we will have half the mass in one, and half the mass in the other, and the amount flowing from one to the other balances the amount flowing in the opposite direction.[0] If they are at differing heights, then a greater percentage of the higher air tends to descend than that percentage of the lower air which ascends. In order for the two flows to balance, the higher packet must contain less air than the lower, and the mass balance of the flows corresponds thusly: high percentage of thin air --------------------------- low percentage of dense air Now, rates are exponential in energy differences[1], so that theoretically we should expect an exponential decay in height, to compensate. How does it go in practice? -Dave [0] How well does it balance? Chemical equilibria seem stable, as they deal with very large numbers over a very long time. Economic equilibria are viewed from the mayfly standpoint of individual people, and so, at best, the shot noise is very visible. [1] That is to say, rates will be exponential in the free energy differences between endpoints and a transition state. We can ignore that complication in this model.

RE: Slaughter in the Name of God > From: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org [mailto:yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:50 AM > > ... we've been fighting the War on Terrorism for as long > > as there's been commerce, so you'd think we'd /realize/ that > > escalation of violence is not a solution. > > Well said! > > --j. Yeah. It certainly wasn't a solution to the Carthaginian problem or the Barbary Pirates. Wait ... no ... actually ... it was a rather permanent solution.

Re: Slaughter in the Name of God ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis Villa" <louie@ximian.com> > > They were the ruling class of a feudal, farming society for quite some > time; I believe there were more than a few issues there. Certainly, not > everyone in Tibet is as excited about the Dalai Lama as Hollywood > appears to be. [Not that the Chinese are much better rights-wise, but > they've actually built roads and such, which led to the creation of > merchant classes and the like that never existed under the Tibetans.] And it's not /going/ to exist under the Tibetans, because it'll be owned and operated by Chinese nationals.

Re: Slaughter in the Name of God At 12:01 PM -0700 on 9/17/02, James Rogers wrote: > The Primitive People pull a fast one on Whitey The Junior > Anthropologist Or Margaret, in the case of a famous proto-feminist... Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

boycotting yahoo Because of this: http://hrw.org/press/2002/08/yahoo080902.htm there are several of us who are in the BDSM lifestyle who are trying to encourage our local groups to find alternatives to yahoo groups as a way of communicating with each other. I've set up a place to have maillists on my server for any group who wants to use it, but I was wondering if anyone knows of an alternative that allows all the bells and whistles that yahoo has, such as reminders, file storage, calendars, etc. Anyone? TIA, Cindy -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: storage bits At Fermi (yes I'm back there; long story), we're buying 4U systems like the fiscal year is ending. We have ~20 ASA IR4US1 systems (not pushing them, there are some other similar units available), with 60 more on order. They're 2-1/2 TB for $10K, although we add a separate IDE or SCSI system disk, because the 3Ware RAID controllers can saturate. Intel SDS2 motherboard, 2 1.4GHz P3s, 2 GB ram, 2 3Ware 7850 Raid controllers, 16 160GB Maxtors, SysKonnect gigabit enet, Fermi RedHat 7.3. http://www.asacomputers.com/cgi-bin/index.fcg?action=displayscreen&templateid=25 There's some interesting info at: http://mit.fnal.gov/~msn/cdf/caf/server_evaluation.html We've decided to go with XFS (which Linus has just merged into the 2.5 tree), mostly because none of the other journaled fs's can maintain >30 GB/s rates with a nearly full filesystem (mostly GB files) with random deletions (we use these systems for caching our 2 petabyte tape store). Ext3 almost did it but dropped from from ~38MB/s to 10 with random deletions, and didn't want to do direct io at all. Only concern is an occasional system lock-up we haven't chased down yet. A load avg > 100 is always a patio of fun. Oddly, even fairly beefy systems like these will breathe hard to keep up with the new STK 9940B tape drives, which crank along at a steady 30GB/s. And you oldforktimers will remember "doofus" my old file server system. It would only take 2.1" of rackspace now, instead of 14 racks. Cheers, Wayne

Re: FWD: Florida Primary 2002: Back to the Future Yes, it's nice to be back in America's flaccid state ... Seems like only yesterday we were suffering electile dysfunction ... Maybe if they made the ballot ovals look like little blue pills ... No, seriously ... I'm here all week ... You were great ... 'nite everybody

Re: boycotting yahoo I'm a bit confused about this boycott thing. How is what China is doing any different than having Scientology and who ever else state-side who takes the whim evoking the DMCA to close down foreign sites they deem inappropriate? At least the Chinese make it voluntary and ask politely, rather than just sending legal musclemen first off. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Defending Unliked Speech Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the Robert Harley writes: > Chuck Murcko wrote: > > But I must feel obligated to defend to the death your right to do so. > > �Je d�sapprouve ce que vous dites, mais je d�fendrai jusqu'� ma mort votre > droit de le dire� > - Arouet Le Jeune, dit �Voltaire� (1694-1778). Here's hoping that tradition perseveres for the novelist currently on trial in Paris for calling Islam "the stupidest religion"... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020917/5/ozxa.html # Tuesday September 17 11:07 AM EST # # French Writer Tried As Anti-Islam, Protest Erupts # By Caroline Brothers # # PARIS (Reuters) - Provocative French novelist Michel Houellebecq # faced a Paris court on Tuesday for allegedly inciting racial hatred # by calling Islam "the stupidest religion" and its holy book the # Koran a depressing read. # # The case, brought against him by four Muslim groups, is a cause # celebre reminiscent of the Salman Rushdie affair, pitting freedom of # expression against religious sensitivities. # # The Muslim groups, which include the Mecca-based World Islamic # League and the Paris Mosque, accuse the writer of insulting Islam in # an interview with the literary magazine "Lire" during last year's # launch of his novel "Plateforme." # # Lire is also on trial over the remarks, which have taken on an added # significance in France in the atmosphere of heightened sensitivity # and concern about Islam following the September 11 attacks by Muslim # radicals in the United States. # # Shortly after the trial started, 11 people in the courtroom stripped # off their shirts to reveal T-shirts saying "No to the censure of the # imams" and "Marianne veiled, Marianne raped" -- a reference to the # female symbol of the French republic. # # "Freedom of expression! freedom of expression!" they and other # Houellebecq supporters chanted after they were thrown out of the # courtroom at the main law courts in central Paris. # # While intellectuals argued before the trial that Houellebecq should # be free to write what he wants, Lyon Mosque rector Kamel Kabtan # retorted: "We are for freedom of expression, but not for insulting # communities." # # BETE NOIRE # # Houellebecq, 45, the bete noire of contemporary French literature, # is no stranger to controversy. He offended conservatives and the # politically correct left with his 1998 novel "Les Particules # Elementaires" ("Atomised" in English). # # Paris Mosque rector Dalil Boubakeur says Muslims have been insulted # once before by Houellebecq, who had the main character in Plateforme # admit he felt "a quiver of glee" every time a "Palestinian # terrorist" was killed. # # The World Islamic League, the Lyon Mosque and the National # Federation of Muslims in France have joined the Paris Mosque in # bringing Houellebecq to trial. # # France's Human Rights League joined them as a civil party, saying # Houellebecq's comments amounted to "Islamophobia" and deserved to be # sanctioned as part of the league's struggle against discrimination # and racism. # # The Paris Mosque has hired Jean-Marc Varaut, one of France's leading # trial lawyers, whose past clients include Maurice Papon, the former # official condemned in 1998 for Nazi-era crimes against humanity for # sending Jews to death camps. # # RESTORING BLASPHEMY? # # Houellebecq's lawyer Emmanuel Pierrat argues that the case # effectively re-establishes the notion of blasphemy, despite the fact # that France as a secular state has no such law, and says # Houellebecq's opponents want to deny him freedom of expression. # # He also argues that the interview in Lire truncated a six-hour # conversation and Houellebecq was not given the chance to approve the # article before it appeared. # # Houellebecq's publisher Flammarion has distanced itself from the # author, whose comments some say may have cost him France's # prestigious Goncourt prize -- for which he had been a contender. # # The novelist, who lives outside Cork, Ireland, writes in a detached # style about a bleak world in which people have forgotten how to # love. # # Translated into 25 languages, "Atomised" incensed France's 1968 # generation with its scathing descriptions of the hippie era but won # him France's November prize in 1998 and the Impac award, one of the # world's biggest fiction prizes. # # Losing his case may mean a year in jail or a $51,000 fine. - Gordon

Re: RSA (repost) "Adam L. Beberg" wrote: > So, who has done RSA implementation before? /me raises hand. > Having a typo-I-cant-spot problem with my CRT... Send me the source. R

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... Pity. Reading that woman's ad and knowing Rohit for years, they sound like a match made in heaven. But why, oh, why, keep that shaved-head photo on prominent display??? There are lots of photos of Rohit looking rather dashing, and with the crucial hair feature enabled! R

Re: boycotting yahoo CDale wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone knows of an alternative that allows > all the bells and whistles that yahoo has, such as reminders, > file storage, calendars, etc. SmartGroups, I think. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 09:11:01PM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote: > Owen Byrne wrote: > >... > > > >Except that parroting the party line doesn't really require much > >freedom of speech. Now if you had posted something from a left of > >center source, you would have been shouted down in flames, buried in > >ad hominem attacks, and probably get your name added to an FBI list. > > Do you think it is really useful to combat hysterical right-wing > propoganda with hysterical left-wing propoganda? > Sure it is - it tends to bring out the people who let "hysterical right wing propaganda" spew forth, while reaching for their gun whenever a "liberal" enters the room. my hysterical left wing "propaganda" is generally an emotional reaction on a mailing list, not an organizaed attempt at converting people's thinking through lies and distortion (as was the original article). Whereas your constant and predictable brandings of my postings are, to my mind, a deliberate and reasoned effort to reduce debate, and discourage left of center postngs. Owen

Re: boycotting yahoo Well I don't think China could force Yahoo! to give up info. So if they are so willing to give it, why wouldn't they be willing to give info to some silly group who may one day decide to get a hair up their ass about the practice of BDSMers? (not to mention folks who don't even practice, but who are just interested in information) What about folks who are interested in talking about software security issues? Didja read about the guy in China who got 11 years for downloading and printing out pro-democracy info? http://www.democracy.org.hk/EN/2002/aug/news_04.html I'm confused about what you're confused about. Cindy On 18 Sep 2002, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > > I'm a bit confused about this boycott thing. How is what China is > doing any different than having Scientology and who ever else > state-side who takes the whim evoking the DMCA to close down foreign > sites they deem inappropriate? At least the Chinese make it voluntary > and ask politely, rather than just sending legal musclemen first off. > > -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: boycotting yahoo At 7:13 AM -0400 on 9/18/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > SmartGroups, I think. Dave Farber's Interesting People list just went over to <http://www.listbox.com> Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... >>>>> "E" == Eirikur Hallgrimsson <eh@mad.scientist.com> writes: E> You just can't tell important things from a picture and a few E> words. It's not how we are built. There's no geek code for E> the heart and soul. Nor is there a Turing Test, even for someone with whom you've spent 11 years, boom, bust and boom again, and 3 children (trust me) There is no magic litmus test other than the totally empirical: "Try it and see" "String bags full of oranges And matters of the heart, People laugh at /anything/ And things just fall apart." - michael leunig The only real test, the only /sensible/ test, is to look back and realize your relationship has lasted 50 years and see no reason to believe it couldn't last another 50. In the absense of 50 years of actual (ahem) hands-on experiential data, a photo and a few words are as good as any, provided you are prepared for the dynamics of it. Love is a verb. Sex is a /shared/ pursuit. There is no 'relation-ship', there is only the crew. sail away! -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... On Wednesday 18 September 2002 06:47 am, Robert Harley wrote: > ....and with the crucial hair feature enabled! That got a good laugh out of me. Just saying "crucial hair feature" improves my day immeasurably. I've done a fair amount of thinking about the "media intermediated" meeting thing. It seriously loses for reasons like Rohit's just encountered. One is both rejected for trivial reasons and rejects for the same. Some people loudly defend that these choices are not trivial. I'd have never met my best friend if I had to pick her out of a crowd for getting to know. I was a teen at the time, but I won't say I'm much improved at being able to spot "interesting" at a distance. Interesting isn't an external thing. I have that brought home to me again every so often. I may think that interesting people dress differently or whatever, but that's total superstition. How do I know what your version of creative attire is? Maybe it's purely functional. I was at a loud party recently, sufficiently loud that conversation of any kind was extremely difficult, and intoxication was the norm. I was working on what my algorithm for meeting people there should be and one of the candidates was "women, in order of attractiveness." I flinched from that, rather violently. At a trade show, or something, I might elect to talk to the people who are looking at interesting exhibits. At a party.....well, if you can't hear the conversation they are having, or if on the net all you have is a photo..... You just can't tell important things from a picture and a few words. It's not how we are built. There's no geek code for the heart and soul. (And if there were people would lie and game the system.) It's too easy to say "Oh, no! He's a geek!" or "She's a CAT person, ick!" when you might have a great time together. We are constructed to form alliances based on how we fit together as people, how we feel in the other person's company, how well we partner on tasks and recreation. This is all entirely speculative based on nothing but superstitious association unless you actually have time in the person's company. Which is why we tend to be screwed when our circle of exposure shrinks after school. Personally, as a writer, the whole internet meet & email thing ought to work better for me than it does for other people, but interestingly, it doesn't. I have to put out the same amount of effort and reap about the same poor results. I have to think it's not the people, but the tool. An aside (okay, yes, I'm a tool geek): Speed Dating Speed Dating (aka 7 Minute Dating) is a live-action stab at actual time in the company of a variety of people, compressed into one event. I think it's noticably better, but still absolutely nothing like working on a project together, cooking, climbing a mountain or whatever. It was, in fact, invented as a jewish thing seeking to match up the young people to avoid total assimilation. It has too much "interview" context and no shared activity beyond that. I give it several points for effort though. I guess my impression that even the Speed Dating thing doesn't do much for you means that the traditional advice of "join activities groups" is actually sound. Eirikur

Re: Defending Unliked Speech Gordon Mohr quoted: ># French Writer Tried As Anti-Islam, Protest Erupts ># By Caroline Brothers ># ># PARIS (Reuters) - Provocative French novelist Michel Houellebecq ># faced a Paris court on Tuesday for allegedly inciting racial hatred ># by calling Islam "the stupidest religion" and its holy book the ># Koran a depressing read. ># ># The case, brought against him by four Muslim groups, is a cause ># celebre reminiscent of the Salman Rushdie affair, pitting freedom of ># expression against religious sensitivities. Very reminiscent indeed. Ayatollah Chirac has decreed a death sentence on Houellebecq and liked-minded fundamentalists have offered millions of euros bounty for his head, so he has gone into hiding under police protection for a few years. Or maybe some handful of Muslims are acting uppity and dragging him to court under "hate speech" laws make a point about people not showin' dem da massive respect dat dey deserve, especially these days. Or maybe some journo is trying to fill column inches on a boring day. BTW I read Houellebecq's "Extension du domaine de la lutte" recently, about a depressed computer services dude working in Paris, looking for love and not finding it, slowing losing his marbles and trying to get a friend of his to kill a woman, and ending up in a clinic for nutcases... Yikes! Purposely provocative, very depressing, with some unbelievably boring passages where the anti-hero writes little stories about animals talking philosophical mumbo-jumbo to each other, quoted inline in full for pages on end. It starts out: "On Friday evening, I was invited to a party with some colleagues from work. There were about thrity of us, all professionals aged from twenty-five to forty. At one point, some cunt started getting undressed. She took off her T-shirt, then her bra, then her skirt, all the while making unbelievable faces. She pranced around for a few seconds, then she started getting dresesd again because she didn't know what else to do. Anyway she never sleeps with anyone. Which underlines the absurdity of her behaviour. After my fourth glass of vodka I started to feel pretty bad so I had to go lie down on a bunch of cushions behind the couch. Shortly after that, two girls came and sat on the couch. Those girls are not pretty at all, the two fat office cows actually. They go to eat together and read books about the development of language in children, all that sort of stuff." ... and it's downhill from there! R

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... Hear hear, Gary. I'm living with a guy right now who I met at a party, emailed with for 2 weeks, then powie! We were both looking at similar goals in life in general, had some attraction for each other, and decided to wing it. I can't say what's going to happen tomorrow, but right now, and for the past few months, we've been happy. Onward Ho! (: Cindy On 18 Sep 2002, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > >>>>> "E" == Eirikur Hallgrimsson <eh@mad.scientist.com> writes: > > E> You just can't tell important things from a picture and a few > E> words. It's not how we are built. There's no geek code for > E> the heart and soul. > > Nor is there a Turing Test, even for someone with whom you've spent 11 > years, boom, bust and boom again, and 3 children (trust me) There is > no magic litmus test other than the totally empirical: "Try it and > see" > > "String bags full of oranges > And matters of the heart, > People laugh at /anything/ > And things just fall apart." > - michael leunig > > The only real test, the only /sensible/ test, is to look back and > realize your relationship has lasted 50 years and see no reason to > believe it couldn't last another 50. In the absense of 50 years of > actual (ahem) hands-on experiential data, a photo and a few words are > as good as any, provided you are prepared for the dynamics of it. > > Love is a verb. Sex is a /shared/ pursuit. There is no > 'relation-ship', there is only the crew. sail away! > > -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... Perhaps we should start a grass roots movement here on FoRK and send the nice lady a few emails on his behalf? Better yet, why don't we see on who can write the best personals ad for Rohit? I'll post the best one to Craigs' list on his behalf. The winner can take me out to dinner. (No, really, I'm charming.) Elias Robert Harley wrote: >Pity. Reading that woman's ad and knowing Rohit for years, they sound >like a match made in heaven. But why, oh, why, keep that shaved-head >photo on prominent display??? There are lots of photos of Rohit >looking rather dashing, and with the crucial hair feature enabled! > >R >

Re: boycotting yahoo On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom wrote: > The others are on mailing list only status for now. A few of the > groups I was in that are run by others are harder to deal with since > many folks just dont want to have to deal with the inconvienence of a > understanding. I've terminated a number of my own mailing lists at yahoogroups many months ago because of similiar sentiments. I've tried lobbying other people to move, but with about zero success. I've got currently only one own mailing list there, which I'm going to move as soon as it is technically possible (which is my ISP's problem, basically). After that, I intend to kick yahoogroups for good.

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I know it's not the popular choice for a lot of people, but I'd suggest, um, church. :-). Like Woody Allen said, 90% of life is showing up, right? Almost anyone can find a church where the sermons don't make you bust out laughing, and you're set. I, for instance, am a Unitarian, which, as someone once observed, is merely a decompression chamber between a real church and a golf course. (ObUUJokes: Mid 70's bumper-sticker: "Honk if you're not sure"; Lenny Bruce: "Did you hear about how the Klan burned a question mark on the Unitarian's lawn?"; "Unitarians would rather go to a discussion group about heaven than to heaven itself."; "Unitarians pray 'to whom it may concern'"; etc...) But, seriously, folks, my teenage-adopted denomination (I'm, um, lapsed, on several fronts, a Dutch-Reformed-turned-atheist father and an agnostic mother who used to be a southern Baptist of some stripe or another) and frankly limousine liberal secular-humanist congregation is about as orthogonal to my present congenital-Republican small-l libertarian turned anarchocapitalist politics as it is possible to be (except for the secular-humanist bit...), and I still go pretty regularly, though not as much as I used to. Heck, the older I get the less of the divine I believe in. I'm asymptotically approaching my father's atheism, these days, and I show up at least once a month. Nice folks though, when I can keep a civil tongue in my head -- smart too, when I can't and end up arguing with them. :-). Anyway, if *I* can end up hitched, anyone can. Talk about orthogonal. I met my practically-socialist state-education-bureaucrat wife one year after I started, moved in with her 6 weeks later :-), married her 2 years after that, and I wasn't even trying meet women. I was just looking to make friends as I was new in town. The trick to the church thing is, whatever denomination/congregation you end up in, expect to end up with a mate, not a date. I mean, some guys manage to stay single, but most, like me, don't. You can practically see the laser-sights light up when you walk into a room... That's because, of course, most churches are *run* by women. Most regular attendants are women. Hell, 65% of all new *ministers*, in protestant denominations, at least, are women. No matter your age, looks, intelligence, whatever, you'll end up surrounded by women. You'll be outnumbered, even several to one -- some of whom are at least better looking than you are. :-). The only place where there are *more* women running things is in grass-roots Republican politics - -- but I won't go there, I promise. If I may make a presumption here, since you brought it up, I figure that between the sophistication and diversity of the subcontinent's religions, and the ubiquity of Indians in various stages of assimilation in So/NoCal, you can find some place to hang out near you, Rohit. You probably don't even have to go, um, native, like I did -- backsliding on my own ostensibly rational godless upbringing and becoming, horrors, a Unitarian... Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.5 iQA/AwUBPYjCBcPxH8jf3ohaEQI2vwCbB2UkMyii/XwKQvvJFSWlMMRheBsAmwUB jDmfQrNRQED3LmW6V8YutN54 =vQ/A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: --]I know it's not the popular choice for a lot of people, but I'd --]suggest, um, church. :-). Like Woody Allen said, 90% of life is --]showing up, right? --] I think another venue for finding people is the workplace. As a contractor I have had the opertunity to meet lots of eligables over the course of my wandering workhistory. My wife was my Task Order Manager years ago, thats how we met. Her joke is that she is still my Task Order Manager but now I dont get paid:)- By starting up your own companies or working in sterile thinklabs you are cutting yourself off from one heck of a fertile ground for linkages....the common office. I like the shurch idea as well. Other ideas... Book circles, geocaching groups, heck Rhorho your still young enough to hit the campus mixers...and I mean the social stuff not the techtech events. Above all, ask yourself whats important to you.. Life, you either life it or you waste it. -tom

AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks Church, AA, same diff? ;-). Cheers, RAH http://www.newsmax.com/archive/print.shtml?a=2002/9/18/161934 NewsMax.com Wednesday, September 18, 2002 AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks If you're looking to hook up with female millionaires you could try some of the classier restaurants or clubs, but the best place of all is a certain New York City Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. According to a Details magazine story cited in the New York Post, "the No. 1 location to score a megabucks babe is an Alcoholics Anonymous center on [New York's] Upper East Side. "It's the choicest meeting in town, right next to the Ralph Lauren store" on Madison Avenue, which features "rich vulnerable women," the mag's October issue says. AA officials were not overjoyed by having the address of their meeting place published, or being cited as the "in" place for finding loaded women - or rather, women who are loaded. "The purpose of our meetings is to let people share their experiences and help others find sobriety. It is not a place to pick up women!" an AA spokesman told The Post. O.K. Return -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: --]Church, AA, same diff? AA is sort of church with ashtrays.

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: --]AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks And, as always, you can take a page out of Fight Club and start showing up at all sorts of support groups. Look what it did for Marla and Jack... "JACK You can't have *both* parasites. You take blood parasites and -- MARLA I want brain parasites. She opens another dryer and does the same thing again. PG 19 JACK Okay. I'll take blood parasites and I'll take organic brain dementia and -- MARLA I want that. JACK You can't have the whole brain! MARLA So far, you have four and I have two! JACK Well, then, take blood parasites. Now, we each have three. MARLA So, we each have three -- that's six. What about the seventh day? I want ascending bowel cancer. JACK *I* want ascending bowel cancer. MARLA That's your favorite, too? Tried to slip it by me, huh? JACK We'll split it. You get it the first and third Sunday of the month. MARLA Deal."

RE: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks advice to the lovelorn haiku serendipity pilots synchronicity: turn the next corner. -----Original Message----- From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:13 PM To: R. A. Hettinga Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org Subject: Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: --]AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks And, as always, you can take a page out of Fight Club and start showing up at all sorts of support groups. Look what it did for Marla and Jack... "JACK You can't have *both* parasites. You take blood parasites and -- MARLA I want brain parasites. She opens another dryer and does the same thing again. PG 19 JACK Okay. I'll take blood parasites and I'll take organic brain dementia and -- MARLA I want that. JACK You can't have the whole brain! MARLA So far, you have four and I have two! JACK Well, then, take blood parasites. Now, we each have three. MARLA So, we each have three -- that's six. What about the seventh day? I want ascending bowel cancer. JACK *I* want ascending bowel cancer. MARLA That's your favorite, too? Tried to slip it by me, huh? JACK We'll split it. You get it the first and third Sunday of the month. MARLA Deal."

Re: boycotting yahoo At 11:06 AM 9/18/02 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >Dave Farber's Interesting People list just went over to ><http://www.listbox.com> It always was, I think. Meng Weng Wong, the founder of pobox, listbox et al was a student of Dave Farber's. Listbox just upgraded its software, however. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

RE: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks less obscure haiku buy a puppy, ro! they are chick magnets. master ventriloquism. gg -----Original Message----- From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:13 PM To: R. A. Hettinga Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org Subject: Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: --]AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks And, as always, you can take a page out of Fight Club and start showing up at all sorts of support groups. Look what it did for Marla and Jack... "JACK You can't have *both* parasites. You take blood parasites and -- MARLA I want brain parasites. She opens another dryer and does the same thing again. PG 19 JACK Okay. I'll take blood parasites and I'll take organic brain dementia and -- MARLA I want that. JACK You can't have the whole brain! MARLA So far, you have four and I have two! JACK Well, then, take blood parasites. Now, we each have three. MARLA So, we each have three -- that's six. What about the seventh day? I want ascending bowel cancer. JACK *I* want ascending bowel cancer. MARLA That's your favorite, too? Tried to slip it by me, huh? JACK We'll split it. You get it the first and third Sunday of the month. MARLA Deal."

Re[2]: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks And the ever popular... Or bring a baby, Provided you do not own, Women come, at baby's cry. GS> less obscure haiku GS> buy a puppy, ro! GS> they are chick magnets. master GS> ventriloquism. GS> gg GS> -----Original Message----- GS> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of Tom GS> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:13 PM GS> To: R. A. Hettinga GS> Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org GS> Subject: Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks GS> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: GS> --]AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks GS> And, as always, you can take a page out of Fight Club and start showing up GS> at all sorts of support groups. Look what it did for Marla and Jack... GS> "JACK You can't have *both* parasites. You take blood parasites and -- GS> MARLA I want brain parasites. GS> She opens another dryer and does the same thing again. PG 19 GS> JACK Okay. I'll take blood parasites and I'll take organic brain dementia GS> and -- GS> MARLA I want that. GS> JACK You can't have the whole brain! GS> MARLA So far, you have four and I have two! GS> JACK Well, then, take blood parasites. Now, we each have three. GS> MARLA So, we each have three -- that's six. What about the seventh day? I GS> want ascending bowel cancer. GS> JACK *I* want ascending bowel cancer. GS> MARLA That's your favorite, too? Tried to slip it by me, huh? GS> JACK We'll split it. You get it the first and third Sunday of the month. GS> MARLA Deal." -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... Tom wrote: >On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--]I know it's not the popular choice for a lot of people, but I'd >--]suggest, um, church. :-). Like Woody Allen said, 90% of life is >--]showing up, right? >--] > >I think another venue for finding people is the workplace. As a contractor >I have had the opertunity to meet lots of eligables over the course of my >wandering workhistory. > >My wife was my Task Order Manager years ago, thats how we met. Her joke >is that she is still my Task Order Manager but now I dont get paid:)- > > Sure if you're willing to risk firing, lawsuits, etc. The last full time job I had the sexual harassement seminar was pretty clear - yes you can have relationships at the office, but its extremely difficult, and the pitfalls are horrendous. Owen

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... This sort of thing is, in my (limited?) experience, increasingly a thing of the past. Not one person I know has found it worth the risk to pursue a relationship with someone in the workplace. It's terrible to think we could litigate our way into extinction...! Elias Owen Byrne wrote: > ... The last full time job I had the sexual harassement seminar > was pretty clear - yes you can have relationships at the office, but > its extremely difficult, and the pitfalls are horrendous.

[IRR] [dgc.chat] First public release of NeuDist Distributed --- begin forwarded text Subject: [dgc.chat] First public release of NeuDist Distributed Transaction Clearing Framework From: Pelle Braendgaard <pelle@neubia.com> To: dgcchat@lists.goldmoney.com Cc: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs@philodox.com>, DGCChat <dgcchat@lists.goldmoney.com>, xmlx <xml-api@intertrader.com> Date: 19 Sep 2002 00:05:39 -0500 Reply-To: <dgcchat@lists.goldmoney.com> I'm happy to announce the first public release of NeuDist NeuDist is an Open Source Software framework for building applications for the Neubia Distributed Clearing Platform. This release contains early java libraries and documentation that would primarily be of interest to developers. Talking about documentation, it is still a bit slim and mainly oriented towards people with experience in Java/XML development. There are currently no sample applications, but they will be available in the next release. The framework currently contains the following: - Classes for creating "Named Objects", which are authenticated using digital signatures within a hierarchy. - Storage framework for "Named Objects". - Simple XML-Signature implementation (Almost certainly not yet interoperable with other implementations) - Simple SOAP client - Simple Servlet API for handling SOAP requests based on "Named Objects". - Current types of "Named Objects" include: NameSpace objects -- for maintaining the NameSpace Authentication Framework AuthenticationTickets -- for doing web site authentication using digital signatures. Next major release is scheduled to contain: - Core: hard coded root public key, for authenticating top level NameSpaces - Signing Services: Implementation of web based signing services End user hosted signing service - Example User Authentication Application - Example Payment System based on NeuDist I will be expanding the documentation over the next few weeks. This will cover not only more indepth technical documentation, but also higher level documentation about the business side of things. Read more about NeuDist or download our early version at http://neudist.org I would love to hear your questions and suggestions. To discuss it further please join neudist-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net You can join it at: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/neudist-discuss Regards Pelle -- Antilles Software Ventures SA http://neubia.com/asv My Web Log Live and Direct from Panama http://talk.org Views of an EconoFist http://econofist.com subscribe: send blank email to dgcchat-join@lists.goldmoney.com unsubscribe: send blank email to dgcchat-leave@lists.goldmoney.com digest: send an email to dgcchat-request@lists.goldmoney.com with "set yourname@yourdomain.com digest=on" in the message body --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Irregulars mailing list Irregulars@tb.tf http://tb.tf/mailman/listinfo/irregulars

Oh ma gawd - funny site of the day... This is for those that have interacted with D Winer "Dave's idea of love is fucking everyone else without so much as a reach around. You're supposed to just shut up and take it." http://winerlog.inspiredsites.net/ =========== Who's the real monster? It seems good Ol' Uncle Dave is once again trying to savage anyone that dares to disagree with him. It seems Ben, Kevin and Bill are making too strong a case. So here we Dave's attempt to fool you into thinking they're some sort of monsters, violent ones no less. Anyone who works with Hemenway or Kearney should be aware that these people are nothing less than monsters, who will stoop to any level to get their way. Yeah sure Dave, whatever you need to believe. The truth is these folks do a fine job of actually helping others and improving RSS in general. Each with their own brand of attitude, to be sure, but they seem to be pretty focused on actually helping things move forward. How is that being monstrous? Is Dave trying to slander their good names and thus poison the public's perception of them? If you haven't already, contact them and ask them how they feel about this foolishness. 9/18/02; 10:07:38 AM - Discuss Dave deflects what he can't take the time to understand It's really quite pitiful. When normal people don't understand something they usually try learning about it. They read up, ask questions and seek the help of those that understand it. This before shooting their mouths off and looking like fools. What Dave does is just the opposite. Posts a link to something he doesn't understand Get's a bunch of e-mail from people who do understand it Derides the idea as being 'too much trouble' and blogs it. Expects others to do research for him Abuses anyone who tries to help him Pontificates, incorrectly, about only part of the issue Realizes he's been a fool but refuses to correct himself Plods forward pedantically trying to defend his idiocy Tries making the educated people look like fools. Sends private e-mails to them trying to scare them off. Exposes any private e-mail they write, out of context. Deflects and runs off to some new topic, repeats from #1 His continued diatribes about RSS-1.0 and it's use of RDF reveal this to be true. Dave doesn't get the idea of the semantic web. He'd rather have you follow his stupid ideas than dare admit that the work of others is worth trying. One reader wrote to us with a good analogy. "It's like that movie The Poseidon Adventure. Dave's like the purser ranting and raving that the passengers should follow him and march toward the bow. I don't know about you but I'd rather be with the fat lady swimming toward the engine room. The ship's fucking sinking and I don't want to be following the idiot." Dave's idea of love is fucking everyone else without so much as a reach around. You're supposed to just shut up and take it. After all, why would good ol' Uncle Dave want to hurt you? It's all about love, right? To hell with asking you if you want to get shafted. And if you dare complain, he savages you. Then he tries to make everyone think you're the one causing all the trouble. We've news for you Dave, we're wise to your tactics and we're talking amongst ourselves about it. We're routing around you damaging behavoir. That's where we're coming from. If you have an example of how you've tried to help Dave, please drop us an e-mail about it. We'll keep it strictly confidential of course. Send it along to zaphod@egroups.com 9/12/02; 10:13:11 AM - Discuss Trying to talk with Dave is like trying to wrestle a pig... The trouble is, you get dirty and the pig seems to like it. Another developer tries talking to Dave and discovers it's fundamentally impossible: His basic response was just that RDF was a joke and the Semantic Web developers are doing a terrible job. In the span of less than five minutes Dave makes such an ass of himself that people at other tables start whispering "that guy is an idiot..." The zaphodim, however, are veteran pig wrestlers. If you've got a similar tale from the mud pit, be sure to drop us a line at: zaphod@egroups.com. 9/11/02; 2:17:58 PM - Discuss (1 response) Aha! Some backing down by the whining one? It would appear the 'dictator release' strategy that Dave's been trying on his crappy little set of RSS hacks is failing to gain support. I'm going to push back the caveat-removing on the 2.0 spec by 24 hours. Still have work to do on the sample file, I want to look into the RFC for time-date specs, and get started on the Radio implementation of 2.0. I have to prepare for Seybold tomorrow, and I want to a little memorial for 9-11. A busy few days for a guy still recovering. Also, it would be great if people who make content tools could review the 2.0 spec and see if there are any deal-stoppers. Hell yeah there are deal stoppers, like nobody wants it nor will they use it! The poor Radio customers! The poor Salon blog users! They're going to be dragged unwillingly into producing XML content that nobody will use! So with the flip of his mighty upgrade switch Dave is going to turn all their content into totally unsupported garbage!!! Ya better speak up now folks otherwise your content is going to start getting rejected! Of course at the same time Dave tries to play the sympathy card. What utter fucking nonsense. This past weekend, the blogosphere excoriates him for his 'blame America' bullshit. Then the RSS community tells him to get stuffed with his dictator release of RSS. Now he's trying to pretend we should be nice to him because he's still recovering? Uh, Dave, if you want to take a rest from the battle then stop picking fights. We'll still kick your ass regardless. That's what years of your abusing people has gotten you Dave. No sympathy anymore, none whatsoever. 9/11/02; 1:56:10 PM - Discuss Dave is Scary on 9/11 Posted on Scripting News on 9/10/2002: Note: During the day tomorrow there will be no updates to Scripting News. I'll be in SF at Seybold, leading a discussion on Web Services for Publishing with people from Amazon, Apple, Google and Jake Savin of UserLand. I may be able to update my Radio weblog, but only if there's something really important to report. So best wishes for a happy and safe 9-11. What kind of asshole wishes people a happy 9/11??!?!?!?!??!! Obviously someone who doesn't have a clue nor lost anyone in the tragedy. 9/11/02; 7:56:06 AM - Discuss Yeow and we though we were harsh! Wow, apparently Dave's sticking his neck out quite far these days. Craig Schamp practically keel-hauls him with this one. He wraps it up with: The man seems to show over and over that he's nothing more than a whining buffoon Give that man an honorary Zaphodim membership card and secret decoder ring! Related links over at PhotoDude, Richard Bennett, Andrea Harris, Reid Stott, Jeff Jarvis, Ipse Dixit, and the Fat Guy. 9/9/02; 12:29:45 PM - Discuss RSS 2.0: code name "Hitler" If Dave tries to steamroll RSS 2.0 through without formal community consensus, here now we call it the "Hitler" release of 2.0. "No objections"? No, he means "No objections I choose to hear." Dave is simply not listening. People are objecting all over. 9/6/02; 9:00:02 AM - Discuss Referral log funnies Every now and then we check the referral logs to see what's pointing back to us. We sincerely apologize to the pool soul that used this search. 9/5/02; 12:15:07 PM - Discuss Luserland Attempts to Trademark "RSS" Dave has waxed and waned about intellectual property rights and how any BigCo that tries to patent its technology or methods is corrupt or morally bankrupt. Scripting News is full of examples. So we found it surprising, as did many others, when Luserland software tried to patent the term 'RSS' back in 2000. Here's the patent application: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78025336 This was apparently just between the start of the RSS 1.0 development efforts, and the publication of the specification. Winer knew about the RSS 1.0 stuff - indeed, he complained about it bitterly at the time. Could Dave be any more transparent?!?!??!?!!!!!!! Since when has Dave been required to follow anything he says he wants others to do??? A good quote from before he filed the patent application: Tim O'Reilly says patents are OK, he's just against stupid patents. In the spirit of Touch of Grey, Tim man, patents are lock-in of the worst kind. There's no way to route around them. 9/4/02; 6:06:51 AM - Discuss When's a Permalink not a Permalink? When Dave writes an item, then removes it!!!!!!!!!!! The permalink links to nothing at that point. So apparently the "perma-" part in permalink is permanent. For everyone except Dave. Too bad his little attempt at a definition fails to mention this...!!!!!!!!! 9/2/02; 6:16:03 PM - Discuss

Re: Oh ma gawd - funny site of the day... >It seems good Ol' Uncle Dave is once again trying to savage anyone that >dares to disagree with him. It seems Ben, Kevin and Bill are making too >strong a case. So here we Dave's attempt to fool you into thinking they're >some sort of monsters, violent ones no less. > >Anyone who works with Hemenway or Kearney should be aware that these people >are nothing less than monsters, who will stoop to any level to get their /me coughs... I'm part of the Monster club. They call me... Hemenway! <g> -- Morbus Iff ( i assault your sensibilities! ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Heh, ten years ago saying the exact same words was most definitely not "parroting the party line". It was even less so thirty years ago. My story remains the same, take it or leave it. I've said the same words to white supremacists as to suburban leftist punks as to homeys as to French Irish, etc. etc.: I don't have to agree with anything you say. I *am* obligated to defend to the death your right to say it. I don't give a rat's ass where you say it, even in France. I don't care where the political pendulum has swung currently. Chuck On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Owen Byrne wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:19:13AM -0700, Chuck Murcko wrote: >> Probably because we have this pesky 1st Amendment thing here. Still, >> lots of us in the States have developed a disturbing tendency to shout >> down or (in recent years) shackle in legal BS opinions, thoughts, and >> individual behaviors we don't agree with. >> > > Except that parroting the party line doesn't really require much > freedom of speech. Now if you had posted something from a left of > center source, you would have been shouted down in flames, buried in > ad hominem attacks, and probably get your name added to an FBI list. > > > Besides the basic rule in the United States now is "I'll defend your > rights to say anything you want, but if it isn't appropriately > neoconish, well, don't expect to work": > > > HHS Seeks Science Advice to Match Bush Views > > By Rick Weiss > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, September 17, 2002; Page A01 > > The Bush administration has begun a broad restructuring of the > scientific advisory committees that guide federal policy in areas such > as patients' rights and public health, eliminating some committees > that were coming to conclusions at odds with the president's views and > in other cases replacing members with handpicked choices. > ... > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26554-2002Sep16.html > > Owen >

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Chuck Murcko wrote: > Heh, ten years ago saying the exact same words was most definitely not > "parroting the party line". > > It was even less so thirty years ago. My story remains the same, take > it or leave it. I've said the same words to white supremacists as to > suburban leftist punks as to homeys as to French Irish, etc. etc.: > > I don't have to agree with anything you say. I *am* obligated to > defend to the death your right to say it. I don't give a rat's ass > where you say it, even in France. I don't care where the political > pendulum has swung currently. > > Chuck I had to laugh at Rumsfield yesterday - when he was heckled by protestors, he said something like "They couldn't do that in Iraq." Meanwhile, from what I could tell, the protestors were being arrested. Owen

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Chuck Murcko wrote: >[...stuff...] Yawn. R

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks R. A. Hettinga: >Church, AA, same diff? It's difficult to measure which is the greater liability in a potential mate, religiosity or alcoholism. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

Re: [VoID] a new low on the personals tip... Owne Byrne: >Sure if you're willing to risk firing, lawsuits, etc. The last full time >job I had the sexual harassement seminar was pretty clear - yes you can >have relationships at the office, but its extremely difficult, and the >pitfalls are >horrendous. Despite that, this is how a lot of couples meet. People tease me about Carolyn, that I just hired a lot of software engineering babes, and then chose the one I liked best. ;-) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review In a message dated 9/19/2002 7:46:37 AM, chuck@topsail.org writes: >That means *you* can't say anything may not be FoRKed or printed or >whatever. You have the choice to ignore it That's not what the First Amendment says at all. It says that Congress cannot say what can't be FoRKed. FoRK can establish any rules it wants. Similarly, The New York Times gets to choose what news IT thinks is "fit to print." If the Times chose not to print anything about, say, Rosie O'Donnell, it would be exercising its First Amendment rights, just as much as it would be if it chose to print something Rosie O'Donnell doesn't like. The necessary corollary of the freedom to say/publish what one wants is the freedom to refuse to publish or say what one doesn't like. The alternative is a state-controlled press that reprints government press releases and calls them news. The question of what is or is not FoRKed is (except for libel or other specific exceptions) not a matter of law, but a matter of what the "publisher" (if any) decides or the "community" (if any) negotiates or does as a matter of custom. For my part, I'd rather people didn't use FoRK as a place in which to dump an expression of their political beliefs. Tom

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Robert Harley: >>BTW, I wasn't aware that the 1st Amendment mandated that crap must be >>FoRKed. Chuck Murcko <chuck@topsail.org>: >It doesn't, BTW. It says the right to free speech shall not be abridged. >That means *you* can't say anything may not be FoRKed or printed or >whatever. Actually, it means just the opposite. The first amendment guarantees Harley's right to say just that. For the outlets where he has editorial control, it even guarantees his right to CENSOR content published through those outlets. The first amendment doesn't limit Harley's speech, and it is neutral with regard to the selection policies of FoRK and other private venues. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Webex Endeavors We have a partnership with Webex. We use their serivce for cross-firewall app sharing--something that Netmeeting/Messenger and Sametime require a lot of configuration of firewalls, authentications, access controls and user training for. Now Webex has invites, instant meeting launch without any configuration. Users like it as now they have something to do in between Web conferences and places to store and author documents, reschedule meetings, relaunch meetings. Webex likes it as people are signed on all the time. Greg September 19, 2002 Tadpole's Secure Web Software Subsidiary Endeavors Technology Teams With Web Meetings Leader WebEx Communications To Provide Best-of-Breed Solution For Extended Group Collaboration During and Between Online Meetings Web meetings raise the quality of team interaction and communications for users of the Web's secure, P2P collaboration network ### Tadpole Technology plc, the mobile computing and network infrastructure group, today announces that its web collaboration subsidiary, Endeavors Technology, Inc., has teamed with Web meetings leader, WebEx Communications,Inc. to help professionals make better use of corporate time and resources, and gain competitive advantage. By integrating the advanced communications capabilities of the WebEx platform with Endeavors' secure P2P collaboration network, Endeavors has created a new method of world-class teamwork and interaction without the hassle of travel. With the rapid growth in popularity of Web meetings, the rationale for this world-class relationship stems from the growing need for workgroups around the world to maintain the quality of the team collaboration experience between online meetings. The issue by those preferring not to travel is how to continue to collaborate and share information with team members between meetings rather than depending on intermittent, insecure email and multiple copies of constantly changing documents. Inter-meeting collaboration needs an asynchronous medium, independent of time. In asynchronous mode, a team member can access, read and edit information relevant to the meeting group at his/her convenience rather than having to fit into the schedules and timeframes of others. A secured environment available only to members of a meeting or project is also essential. Endeavors' Magi technology converts the Web into a secure platform for sharing information directly from people's desktops. WebEx meetings can be recorded and reviewed at any time, documents shared in the meeting can be actioned in real-time or at a later date, calendars and project schedules can be updated at any time, and new individuals added to the workgroup at will . all in a secure environment with people working across the globe, inside or outside company firewalls. Magi peer collaboration securely delivers significant benefits to Web meeting participants. Not only can they share and access information at will, but they can also know which other participants are online or "present." This enables them to chat and message each other, search across other people's Magi environment, and work jointly on relevant documents highly productively. With Magi collaboration, in tandem with WebEx conferencing, the savings can be huge in terms of travel costs, phone bills, and, most importantly, timely completion of projects and tasks. "In order to realise the full potential of Web meetings, best-of-breed services are needed to eliminate time and geographical boundaries," says Bernard Hulme, Tadpole's group chief executive. "The powerful combination of Endeavors' Magi and WebEx's communications technologies will assist global work teams to better meet critical business goals and deadlines by maintaining teamwork momentum within and between Web meetings." "WebEx is transforming the way businesses use the Web for sales, marketing, training, support and product design," says David Farrington, vice president of corporate development at WebEx Communications. "By integrating the communications capabilities of the WebEx platform with Endeavors' secure collaboration network, Endeavors has created an offering that provides the best in synchronous and asynchronous communications." About Magi Magi Enterprise 3.0, an award-winning web collaboration system, transforms today's Web into a highly secure inter- and intra-enterprise collaboration network of files and web resources. For the first time, enterprises can implement ad-hoc Virtual Private Networks for collaboration very rapidly and affordably without disrupting existing applications, networks or work practices. Magi Enterprise 3.0 does this by effectively transforming unsecured, "read-only" Web networks into two-way trusted and transparent collaboration environments, through the use of such features as cross-firewall connections, advanced data extraction, an intuitive graphical interface, and universal name spaces generating "follow me URLs" for mobile professionals. About Endeavors Technology, Inc. Endeavors Technology, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of mobile computing and network infrastructure vendor Tadpole Technology plc (LSE-TAD, www.tadpole.com), which has plants and offices in Irvine and Carlsbad (California), and Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Bristol (UK). For further information on Endeavors' P2P solutions, call 949-833-2800, email to p2p@endeavors.com, or visit the company's website http://www.endeavors.com. ends For further information, please contact: Bernard Hulme, Tadpole Technology - via Patcom Media Hugh Paterson, Patcom Media - Tel 0207 987 4888, Email hughp@patcom-media.com Bullets for Editors WebEx Web communications services (synchronous): network-based platform for delivering highly interactive, visually dynamic Web communications. The WebEx platform supports real-time data, voice and video communications. WebEx is the only company to design, develop and deploy a global network for real-time Web communications. Magi On and off-line (asynchronous) communication and collaboration: cross enterprise search and discovery, transparent security and trust (SSL & PKI), 2-way web access to files and applications, permanent cross firewall access, ad hoc and permanent secure groups, centralized or decentralized control of access lists and security privileges, centralized caching of information (never lose anything critical), multi-device access to information (desktop, laptop, PDA).

Re: Avast there matey On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 14:51 Europe/London, Bill Kearney wrote: >> From the completely unrelated but funny department... > > "Talk like a Pirate Day". > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5011-2002Sep11.html > > Which is today, of course. > > That and 'piratecore' rapping style... > http://poorman.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_poorman_archive.html#81798893 > > Anything, just anything, to get us off the geek dating tips topic.... > > -Bill Kearney > Arrr, he be a scurvy dog, that Bill Kearney.

Re: Avast there matey Ben Hammersley wrote: > > On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 14:51 Europe/London, Bill Kearney wrote: > >>> From the completely unrelated but funny department... >> >> >> "Talk like a Pirate Day". >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5011-2002Sep11.html >> >> Which is today, of course. >> >> That and 'piratecore' rapping style... >> http://poorman.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_poorman_archive.html#81798893 >> >> Anything, just anything, to get us off the geek dating tips topic.... >> >> -Bill Kearney >> > > > Arrr, he be a scurvy dog, that Bill Kearney. Well, shiver me timbers, but my favorite pirate phrase is missing from both of those.Arrr.... and wondering if there's a rap equivalent. Owen http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-shi2.htm *Q AND A SECTION* *SHIVER MY TIMBERS* /From Tad Spencer/: "Please could you tell me where the phrase /shiver my timbers/ originated?" This is one of those supposedly nautical expressions that seem to be better known through a couple of appearances in fiction than by any actual sailors' usage. It's an exclamation that may allude to a ship striking some rock or other obstacle so hard that her timbers shiver, or shake, so implying a calamity has occurred. It is first recorded as being used by Captain Frederick Marryat in /Jacob Faithful/ in 1835: "I won't thrash you Tom. Shiver my timbers if I do". It has gained a firm place in the language because almost fifty years later Robert Louis Stevenson found it to be just the kind of old-salt saying that fitted the character of Long John Silver in /Treasure Island/: "Cross me, and you'll go where many a good man's gone before you ... some to the yard-arm, shiver my timbers, and some by the board, and all to feed the fishes". Since then, it's mainly been the preserve of second-rate seafaring yarns.

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks Geege Schuman wrote: > less obscure haiku > > buy a puppy, ro! > they are chick magnets. master > ventriloquism. Reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon, woman walking dog, man walking aligator, dog mostly eaten by aligator, thought cloud above man's head, "This is *such* a great way to meet chicks!" - Joe

Re: Oh ma gawd - funny site of the day... Ahhhh Dave Winer..Seems like only yesterday fork was knee deep in winerrants..hes gone away though...so sad (insert real honest to goshness tears) But the past live on...in the archives... Remeber when Dave was being betrayed by O'Reilly? http://www.xent.com/aug00/0725.html On "closed source" justifications http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/sept00/0346.html Daves trys to grok fork http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/sept00/0953.html NT runs just as good as linux...really http://www.xent.com/aug00/0069.html There are a few months of this stuff (just google or forkcrawl the archives) then he got truly fedup with all our not polite unfresh thinking and went silent, for the most part. oh well, back to life. -tom

RE: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review > Chuck Murcko wrote: > > > Heh, ten years ago saying the exact same words was most definitely not > > "parroting the party line". > > > > It was even less so thirty years ago. My story remains the same, take > > it or leave it. I've said the same words to white supremacists as to > > suburban leftist punks as to homeys as to French Irish, etc. etc.: > > > > I don't have to agree with anything you say. I *am* obligated to > > defend to the death your right to say it. I don't give a rat's ass > > where you say it, even in France. I don't care where the political > > pendulum has swung currently. > > > > Chuck > > > I had to laugh at Rumsfield yesterday - when he was heckled by > protestors, he said something like "They couldn't do that in Iraq." > Meanwhile, from what I could tell, the protestors were being arrested. > > Owen Trying to shoutdown a speaker or being loud and rowdy while someone else is trying to speak (in the vernacular, 'getting in their face') is rude and disrespectful. And persistently getting in someones face is assault, a criminal offense. If these people have something to say, they can say it with signs or get their own venue. And here is something else to chew on... these protesters are NOT interested in changing anyones mind about what Rumsfield is saying. How likely are you to change someone's mind by being rude and disrespectful to them? Is this how to win friends and influence people? Either these folks are social misfits who have no understanding of human interactions (else they would try more constructive means to get their message across) or they are just out to get their rocks off regardless of how it affects other people, and that is immoral at best and downright evil at worst. Bill

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Bill Stoddard wrote: >>Chuck Murcko wrote: >> >> >> >>>Heh, ten years ago saying the exact same words was most definitely not >>>"parroting the party line". >>> >>>It was even less so thirty years ago. My story remains the same, take >>>it or leave it. I've said the same words to white supremacists as to >>>suburban leftist punks as to homeys as to French Irish, etc. etc.: >>> >>>I don't have to agree with anything you say. I *am* obligated to >>>defend to the death your right to say it. I don't give a rat's ass >>>where you say it, even in France. I don't care where the political >>>pendulum has swung currently. >>> >>>Chuck >>> >>> >>I had to laugh at Rumsfield yesterday - when he was heckled by >>protestors, he said something like "They couldn't do that in Iraq." >>Meanwhile, from what I could tell, the protestors were being arrested. >> >>Owen >> >> > >Trying to shoutdown a speaker or being loud and rowdy while someone else is >trying to speak (in the vernacular, 'getting in their face') is rude and >disrespectful. And persistently getting in someones face is assault, a >criminal offense. If these people have something to say, they can say it >with signs or get their own venue. And here is something else to chew on... >these protesters are NOT interested in changing anyones mind about what >Rumsfield is saying. How likely are you to change someone's mind by being >rude and disrespectful to them? Is this how to win friends and influence >people? Either these folks are social misfits who have no understanding of >human interactions (else they would try more constructive means to get their >message across) or they are just out to get their rocks off regardless of >how it affects other people, and that is immoral at best and downright evil >at worst. > >Bill > > Polite and respectful protest is acceptable then. No dumping tea in the harbour or anything like that. I think the primary purpose of loud and rowdy protests is to get on television, and that the tactics can be justified as a reaction to a systematic removal of alternative viewpoints from that medium. On the other hand, it was a priceless TV moment. There was nothing resembling assault, and the protestors were not in anybody's face (at least in my understanding of the vernacular). And no, being rude and disrespectful is not the way to influence politicians, but the standard way of using lobbyists and writing checks is beyond many of us. Owen

RE: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote: --]How likely are you to change someone's mind by being --]rude and disrespectful to them? Is this how to win friends and influence --]people? Point the first, I doubt if they are trying to change Rumsy's mind but rather to show others that there is a vocal and violent opposition to his views. With such flagrant showings of opposition there would be more coverage of the opposing ideas and thus the spreading of the dissenting meme. A viri need not comply with the wishes of the attacked host, rather the host had better make some antibodies or learn to adapt. Point the second. Historicaly the "in yer face" mode of confrontation has been used to gain popular support and to grow from seeds "grass roots" movements. Witness the big bold "in yer face" signature of Hancock on the "in yer face" Declaration of the american colonies to the governing powers of england. Witness also the chicago seven, Others will follow in examplare form upon digging. Now point the third, is it annoying? Yes, and if your annoyed then the "in yer facers" have done thier job. Sad to say the polite persnikiters are teh very fule the "in yer facers" hope to ignite. If your burning, your being used. Pointed the personal...The politics of the polite are more often the refuge of backstabings, closed mouth recourlessness and hypocritcal behavoirs. Id rather hear what those who oppose me have to say than quietly be knifed by the slow hand of the coward. Seek not the polite or impolite but rather the reasons why. -tom

Re: Avast there matey Owen Byrne writes: > [quoting http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-shi2.htm] > *SHIVER MY TIMBERS* > > /From Tad Spencer/: "Please could you tell me where the phrase /shiver > my timbers/ originated?" > > This is one of those supposedly nautical expressions that seem to be > better known through a couple of appearances in fiction than by any > actual sailors' usage. > > It's an exclamation that may allude to a ship striking some rock or > other obstacle so hard that her timbers shiver, or shake, so implying a > calamity has occurred. It is first recorded as being used by Captain > Frederick Marryat in /Jacob Faithful/ in 1835: "I won't thrash you Tom. > Shiver my timbers if I do". It seems implausible to me that "shiver" here means "to shake"; I don't recall seeing the word used transitively in that sense, and web1913 lists that sense as "v. i.", or intransitive. The transitive sense of "shiver", which we no longer use but which people used widely in the 1800s (web1913 doesn't even list it as archaic or obsolete), means "to shatter into splinters, normally with a blow". Shivering a boat's timbers, of course, leaves you with no boat. (Shivering some of them, which will happen if you hit a rock hard enough, leaves you with a sinking boat.) So, "Shiver my timbers if I do," can be reasonably interpreted as a more vivid way of saying, "May I die suddenly if I do." The interpretation suggested by Quinion, "May my boat be damaged," neither makes as much sense in context nor obeys the normal rules of grammar. I've sent a copy of this to Quinion.

RE: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote: > --]How likely are you to change someone's mind by being > --]rude and disrespectful to them? Is this how to win friends and > influence > --]people? > > Point the first, I doubt if they are trying to change Rumsy's mind but > rather to show others that there is a vocal and violent opposition to his > views. With such flagrant showings of opposition there would be more > coverage of the opposing ideas and thus the spreading of the dissenting > meme. A viri need not comply with the wishes of the attacked host, rather > the host had better make some antibodies or learn to adapt. > > Point the second. Historicaly the "in yer face" mode of confrontation has > been used to gain popular support and to grow from seeds "grass roots" > movements. Witness the big bold "in yer face" signature of Hancock on the > "in yer face" Declaration of the american colonies to the governing > powers of england. Witness also the chicago seven, Others will follow in > examplare form upon digging. > > Now point the third, is it annoying? Yes, and if your annoyed then the "in > yer facers" have done thier job. Sad to say the polite persnikiters are > teh very fule the "in yer facers" hope to ignite. If your burning, your > being used. > > Pointed the personal...The politics of the polite are more often the > refuge of backstabings, closed mouth recourlessness and hypocritcal > behavoirs. Id rather hear what those who oppose me have to say than > quietly be knifed by the slow hand of the coward. > > > > Seek not the polite or impolite but rather the reasons why. > > > -tom Good points all but they don't apply in this case. Someone is speaking and a group of selfish bastards only interested in getting their rocks off are trying to shout him down (they are doing it because 'it's good for the soul'. Kind like Chuckie Manson doing the stuff he did cause 'it was good for his soul'). Unprincipled and evil. It's got nothing to do with throwing tea in the harbor or the DoI. Bill

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review What I meant was that neither he nor anyone else has any *authority* to say something can or can't be published, and make that stick, at least in the US, and from some descriptions, France. Of course he can say anything he wants. And I can choose to ignore it, or not. Works both ways. Fscking semantics. Chuck On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 06:41 AM, Russell Turpin wrote: > Robert Harley: >>> BTW, I wasn't aware that the 1st Amendment mandated that crap must be >>> FoRKed. > > Chuck Murcko <chuck@topsail.org>: >> It doesn't, BTW. It says the right to free speech shall not be >> abridged. That means *you* can't say anything may not be FoRKed or >> printed or whatever. > > Actually, it means just the opposite. The first > amendment guarantees Harley's right to say just > that. For the outlets where he has editorial > control, it even guarantees his right to CENSOR > content published through those outlets. The > first amendment doesn't limit Harley's speech, > and it is neutral with regard to the selection > policies of FoRK and other private venues. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx >

RE: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote: --]Good points all but they don't apply in this case. Someone is speaking and --]a group of selfish bastards only interested in getting their rocks off are --]trying to shout him down (they are doing it because 'it's good for the --]soul'. Kind like Chuckie Manson doing the stuff he did cause 'it was good --]for his soul'). Unprincipled and evil. It's got nothing to do with throwing --]tea in the harbor or the DoI. History is written by the victors. If the rabble can put forth there ideas they will be tempered in the pages of yore as "strong willed voices decrying the obvious injustices of the day" Once again, look at the Chicago 7, a loud and rude a crowd of selfish pricks as you were want to find in the day. History of course colors them with times great blur filter. The jagged bits that , at the time, were called rude and obnoxious are now seen as a stab of justive doing in the sideof the ill pathed goverment.

Re: [meta-forkage] > For my part, I'd rather people didn't use FoRK as a place in which to dump an > expression of their political beliefs. I'll second that, although with emphasis upon /dump/, rather than on /political/. I don't mind if people advocate nuking gay baby whales for jesus, if they can make a good, original, argument for it. I do mind if someone should attempt to further the notion that 1+1=2, merely by cut-and-pasting a few pages of W&R. "New bits" are not a temporal property; we create them when we add context or clarification to the old bits of others' thoughts. -Dave :::::::::::: > ... being rude and disrespectful is not the way to influence > politicians, but the standard way of using lobbyists and > writing checks is beyond many of us. The standard way has some extreme precedents: > Q: When was the Roman empire sold, and who bought it? > > A: On March 28th, 193 AD, the Roman empire was auctioned off by the > Praetorian guards to the wealthy senator Didius Julianus for the price > of 6250 drachms per soldier. (as found in <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/puzzles/5.html>, quoting Gibbon) Now, an economist might argue that selling offices is the most efficient way to fill them (what would Coase say?), but wouldn't that convince everyone (but the supporters of plutocracy) that efficiency is not the primary virtue of politics?

Re: Avast there matey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kragen Sitaker" <kragen@pobox.com> > > It's an exclamation that may allude to a ship striking some rock or > > other obstacle so hard that her timbers shiver, or shake, so implying a > > calamity has occurred. It is first recorded as being used by Captain > > Frederick Marryat in /Jacob Faithful/ in 1835: "I won't thrash you Tom. > > Shiver my timbers if I do". I think it went like this: "I won't thrash you Tom, if you shiver my timber..." Or maybe that was just the butt pirates...

Re: boycotting yahoo Just tried smartgroups: The layout of pages is pretty challenging to use quickly, but the most interesting aspect is that once you are in, there is no way to get out. You can unsubscribe yourself as the sole member of a group, but you cannot delete the group. Or if you can, I couldn't find it before deleting myself, and now it's invisible to me. Another interesting thing: Security forms are reset to full-public settings each time you load them, rather than set from your current settings. All in all, I wasn't impressed and have stayed with the Yahooligans for another run. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Re: Avast there matey On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Mr. FoRK wrote: --]I think it went like this: "I won't thrash you Tom, if you shiver my --]timber..." --]Or maybe that was just the butt pirates... --] How did I get wrangled into this thread? Do I really need to make pewp deck jokes at this point. Arrrrg ye mateys, now best ya be off tis topic or Ill hoist my jib and hope for a stiff wind. Arrrg when Im happy and arrrg when Im not.

Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:11:47AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote: > people? Either these folks are social misfits who have no understanding of > human interactions (else they would try more constructive means to get their > message across) or they are just out to get their rocks off regardless of > how it affects other people, and that is immoral at best and downright evil > at worst. Are you kidding? It was fucking BRILLIANT. Do you know what exposure that got them? They sat perfectly so that the cameras could focus on the mildly exasperated Rumsfeld and their "UN Inspections not war" banner. That picture will be dominating the news cycles in China, Iraq, Russia, Germany, and France, at least. For goodness sakes, you're arguing about it on FoRK. In politics by sound-bite, those two rude hags kicked ass and took names. For the record, I don't think they even got arrested, which is a shame. It is part of the game -- make an ass of yourself, get your point on the nightly news, spend a couple days in the clink for disorderly. -- njl

Sun donates elliptic curve code to OpenSSL? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 19 Sep 2002 22:18:46 -0400 From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com> To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com Subject: Sun donates elliptic curve code to OpenSSL? According to this: http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-09/sunflash.20020919.8.html Sun is donating some elliptic curve code to the OpenSSL project. Does anyone know details that they would care to share on the nature of the donation? -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com

Re: [meta-forkage] In a message dated 9/19/2002 3:45:45 PM, dl@silcom.com writes: >I don't mind if people advocate nuking >gay baby whales for jesus, if they can >make a good, original, argument for it. I can't imagine any other kind of argument for nuking gay baby whales for jesus. But do you mean nuking baby gay whales who are for jesus; or nuking baby gay whales for Jesus's sake? splitting hairs with a FoRK, Tom

Sun Well, it looks like Sun are going ahead with their ubiquitous computing plans without Mithril. Greg Reuters Market News Sun Micro Outlines Roadmap for Managing Networks Friday September 20, 5:00 am ET By Peter Henderson SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Computer maker Sun Microsystems Inc. on Thursday said it would create in a few years a network environment that will be as straightforward to handle as a single machine, a strategy it calls N1. It laid out a road map for a new layer of intelligent software and systems that will meld unwieldy networks into easy-to-use systems, a goal similar to those of most rivals making computers which manage networks. EMC Corp. announced this week software aimed at allowing users to manage storage resources as a pool. Hewlett-Packard Co has a Utility Data Center, designed for broader management. International Business Machines Corp's project eLiza is working to make computers "self-healing" when systems break. "Applications still have to run zeroes and ones on some computing engine but the whole idea behind N1 is you stop thinking about that. You don't think about what box it is running on," Sun Vice President Steve MacKay, head of the N1 program, said in an interview on the sidelines of a Sun user conference. Many industry executives see computer power eventually being sold like power or water, as a utility that can be turned on or off, in whatever volume one wants whenever needed. For that to happen computers must be tied together seamlessly, rather than cobbling them together with tenuous links, as most networks do today, experts say. There are still major barriers, though, such as communications standards for machines from different vendors to interoperate closely. Sun promised to deliver a "virtualization engine" that would let administrators look at their entire network as a pool by the end of the year. Network administrators today often have no automatic system to report what is in the network. "It'll tell you what you have and how it is laid out," promised MacKay The second stage, beginning in 2003, would allow users to identify a service, such as online banking, and allocate resources for them with a few clicks, Sun said. Finally, in 2004, Sun's software should allow networks to change uses of resources on the fly in response to changing needs, such as a bank assuring quicker online response time for priority users, the company said.

RE: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:11:47AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > people? Either these folks are social misfits who have no > understanding of > > human interactions (else they would try more constructive means > to get their > > message across) or they are just out to get their rocks off > regardless of > > how it affects other people, and that is immoral at best and > downright evil > > at worst. > > Are you kidding? It was fucking BRILLIANT. Do you know what > exposure that got > them? They sat perfectly so that the cameras could focus on the mildly > exasperated Rumsfeld and their "UN Inspections not war" banner. What I am specifically referring to is protesters shouting down speakers or making so much noise that it interferes with the speaker. That's wrong, immoral and unethical no matter what the political bent of the speakers and the protesters. Rowdy protests in their own venue (on a college campus or some of the commons areas of DC) is perfectly fine by me. Waving signs to get attention is fine. > That picture > will be dominating the news cycles in China, Iraq, Russia, Germany, and > France, at least. For goodness sakes, you're arguing about it on FoRK. In > politics by sound-bite, those two rude hags kicked ass and took names. > > For the record, I don't think they even got arrested, which is a shame. Well, Owen implied the protesters were arrested. Was he just jacking himself off at the expense of other people? Exactly why is it a shame that they were not arrested? Think about what you are saying and what you are telegraphing about your state of mind here. You WANT people to do bad things (ie, police arresting peaceful protesters) if it can help you further your cause? That attitude just sucks. You have no moral ground to stand on if that is what you believe. > It is part of the game -- make an ass of yourself, get your point on > the nightly > news, spend a couple days in the clink for disorderly. Sure, just don't whine about getting arrested if you make it a point to get in someone's face. One other comment... Most of the people that are protesting against taking out the Iraqi dictator wouldn't give a rats ass if a nuke went off in NYC. They simply wouldn't care so why in the hell should the Americal public listen to them on matters of national security? So enlighten me, exactly why shouldn't Hussein be taken out? And if your answr boils down to "i don't give a shit about what happens to the US", you can kiss my ass :-) Bill

RE: <nettime> The War Prayer I'm sure Patton used it. I'm all for using it in the coming war with Iraq. Yet I'd be queasy about doing it in the Philippines circa 1905, which was his point. > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of R. A. > Hettinga > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:44 PM > To: Digital Bearer Settlement List; fork@spamassassin.taint.org > Subject: <nettime> The War Prayer > > > --- begin forwarded text > > > Status: RO > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:57:27 -0700 > To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net > From: Phil Duncan <PDuncan@AggregateStudio.com> > Subject: <nettime> The War Prayer > Sender: nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net > Reply-To: Phil Duncan <PDuncan@AggregateStudio.com> > > The following prayer is from a story by Mark Twain, and was quoted by > Lewis > Laphan in the October issue of Harper's magazine. It occurs at the very > end > of an excellent article which I recommend to you. > > In the story, an old man enters a church where the congregation has been > listening to an heroic sermon about "the glory to be won in battle by > young > patriots armed with the love of God." He usurps the pulpit and prays the > following: > > "O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreads with our > shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their > patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of > their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes > with > a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending > widows > with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little > children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags > and > hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of > winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge > of > the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their > hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy > their > steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the > blood > of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the > Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that > are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen." > > Twain wrote the story, "The War Prayer," in 1905 during the American > occupation of the Philippines, but the story wasn't printed until 1923, > thirteen years after his death, because the editors thought it > "unsuitable" > for publication at the time it was written. > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net > > --- end forwarded text > > > -- > ----------------- > R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> > The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> > 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA > "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, > [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to > experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g > A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human > race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Absolutely correct. Perhaps the most fundamental thing to realize about life on Earth today. The following is a fascinating document of official Government policy that bears close reading. It is the aspirations of a wonderful nation in an imperfect world. > The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, > however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the > future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an > area where America must excel. I was recently at a lecture about the surprising success of Radio Sawa, our new music-and-news channel for 15-30 year old Arabs. It's #1 in practically every market it's entered, nearing 90% listenership in Amman. And it's even beginning to be trusted for news, well past BBC and taking share from every other government broadcaster. It is as hard to imagine America losing a war of ideas in the long-term as it is to imagine America making any headway at all in the short term. Many of you may disagree, but I found the document below surprisingly centrist. If you know the code, you can hear clearly partisan tones, re: ICC, Taiwan Relations Act, etc. But, still, this is as much a Democratic platform as not. Africa and AIDS take up more mindshare than I feared they might. As you read, replace "United States" with "Roman Empire" and it may make as much sense, in the long view of history. I don't know how proud to be about that, but it is telling. Sometime I daydream that the President might sit down with the nation with Perotista flip charts and explain to our citizens the sheer vastness of our 700+ military installations overseas and what they do for us. It would be a powerful education on how engaged we are in the world around us. Heck, I'd love to see a real-time map of Federal expenditures around the globe, a softly glowing necklace of embassies, carriers, arctic research stations, hotels, golf courses, warehouses, libraries, clinics and all the rest of the influence a trillion dollars here or there can buy. Of course, this still doesn't leave me any more comfortable with the real news in this document: the Bush Doctrine for pre-emptive strikes. I'd sooner repeal the Church amendments on covert action than permit such a principle to be loosed upon the world. Rohit ----------------------------------------------------- September 20, 2002 Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy Following is the full text of President Bush's new national security strategy. The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of the Administration's policy. INTRODUCTION THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent. Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us. To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror -- because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn. The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers find ourselves on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers -- even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement. Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders. The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty -- so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of AIDS and other infectious diseases. In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required. We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment. Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission. I. Overview of America's International Strategy "Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent." President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002 The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality. That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends. This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity. And this path is not America's alone. It is open to all. To achieve these goals, the United States will: * champion aspirations for human dignity; * strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends; * work with others to defuse regional conflicts; * prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction; * ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade; * expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy; * develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and * transform America's national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities." President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002 In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property. These demands can be met in many ways. America's constitution has served us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and aspirations of their people. Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a stronger, but is a freer and more just society. Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And when openings arrive, we can encourage change -- as we did in central and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all cherish. Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the national security strategy of the United States must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty. Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international bodies. We will: * speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom; * use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take; * make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and * take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments. We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it. III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends "Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." President Bush Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral) September 14, 2001 The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents. In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them. The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes -- some seen, some unseen. Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia. Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate. We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to finish the task. The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the movement of terrorists' assets through alternative financial networks. However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek. We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by: * direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors; * defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and * denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes: * using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose; * supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation; * diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and * using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism. While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter attack. This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector. This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic. While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide. As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts "We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small." President Bush Berlin, Germany May 23, 2002 Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering and restore stability. No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action -- direct or indirect -- is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind: * The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge. * The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively. Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will apply these principles: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests, and listens to their voices, and counts their votes. The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict. The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. So the United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them. In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the region became acute. With Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan's choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India's potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan that can help defuse military confrontation. Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference. In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope. We will work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere. Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while -- as important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country. In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian people. In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States -- preserving human dignity -- and our strategic priority -- combating global terror. American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa's fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists. An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to confronting these emerging transnational threats. Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that focuses bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the region: * countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention; * coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and * Africa's capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis. Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a common responsibility for democratic political systems offers opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent. V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction "The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power." President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002 The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation. Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable. But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous. In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states: * brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; * display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; * are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; * sponsor terrorism around the globe; and * reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands. At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations. We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis. Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes: * Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities -- detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities -- are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries. * Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward. * Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked. It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first. * In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. * In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. * Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action. For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning. The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction. The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will: * build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge; * coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and * continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results. The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade. "When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount -- no amount -- of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively." President Bush Monterrey, Mexico March 22, 2002 A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty. We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth, including: * pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity; * tax policies -- particularly lower marginal tax rates -- that improve incentives for work and investment; * rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors; * strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use; * sound fiscal policies to support business activity; * investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and * free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity. The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies -- industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world. A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are Japan's efforts to end deflation and address the problems of non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system. We will continue to use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners -- including through the Group of Seven (G-7) -- to discuss policies they are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher global economic growth. Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in their future. We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial markets. We will work actively with other countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and more effectively resolving them when they occur. The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing so. We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy. The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person -- or a nation -- to make a living. To promote free trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy: * Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization. We will assist Russia's preparations to join the WTO. * Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade. * Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points. * Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration's trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority. * Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration -- all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. * Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred. * Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets. * Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy "network" between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade. * Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region. We will also continue to work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies. Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to: * remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation; * obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can show real cuts; * develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission reductions; * promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power -- which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks; * increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion -- the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year's budget; and * assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path. VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy "In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens." President Bush Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank) March 14, 2002 A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development -- and opportunity -- is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy. Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy. Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance -- and the strategies to achieve those objectives -- must change. This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's poorest economies within a decade. The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve this goal: * Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States. While continuing our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms. * Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world's poor. We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development Association (IDA) -- the World Bank's fund for the poorest countries -- and the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing countries. * Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world's poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that more children are getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their families. We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation system that measures recipient countries' progress. For the first time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do. * Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development banks. We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using grants to support development projects that show results. * Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy. * Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more. * Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been devastated by AIDS. * Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition. VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power "We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war." President Bush West Point, New York June 1, 2002 America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions -- as broad as practicable -- of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility. There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade. The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO's core mission -- collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies -- remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance. The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must: * expand NATO's membership to those democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests; * ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat contributions to make in coalition warfare; * develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective multinational fighting forces; * take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities; * streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and * maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces. If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies' efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come. The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack. We have deepened cooperation on counter-terrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand. The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we will: * look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our close defense and diplomatic cooperation; * work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of the region over the longer-term; * build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we continue working together to resolve regional and global problems -- as we have so many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora; * maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic environment; and * build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage change in this dynamic region. We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition -- most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape. With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States. Russia's top leaders have a realistic assessment of their country's current weakness and the policies -- internal and external -- needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia's uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia's very weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years -- or even decades. The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia. Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear and missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic future. The United States relationship with China is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness. The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our citizens. Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen's needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential. Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and the WTO's requirements for transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree. The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and unproductive. Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress. IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century "Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people." President Bush Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress) September 20, 2001 The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed. It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must: * assure our allies and friends; * dissuade future military competition; * deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and * decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails. The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges. The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces. Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space. Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends. We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -- whether a state or non-state actor -- to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. Intelligence -- and how we use it -- is our first line of defense against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object -- the Soviet bloc -- the intelligence community is coping with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets. We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends. We need to protect the capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and to maximize injury. We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between intelligence and law enforcement. Initiatives in this area will include: * strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence capabilities; * establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies; * continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage; * investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and * collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with all-source analysis. As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend America's interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy. Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part. Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel. We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials. We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people. Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America's borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish -- our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life -- are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life. We will adjust to it and thrive -- in spite of it. In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values. Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begins.

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks >>>>> "G" == Geege Schuman <geege@barrera.org> writes: G> SURELY you meant political extremes and not politics? baisley? G> help me out here. OK, but only if you also meant religious and alcoholic extremes ;) When the political canvassers come to my door during the campaigns, I always wonder why cigarette packages are labelled with warnings whereas political brochures are not; the statistics clearly show which is the greater, more senseless, and more preventable killer. >>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin <deafbox@hotmail.com> writes: R> It's difficult to measure which is the greater liability in a R> potential mate, religiosity or alcoholism. G> Or politics. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Re[2]: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks GLM> whereas political brochures are not; the statistics clearly show GLM> which is the greater, more senseless, and more preventable killer. So outside of the occasional hit by a mafia-boy, where's the killing? If you said mind-numbing, rights destroying, cynic-making force, I'd agree. But, does politics really kill? I'm bitter atm. Two reasons mostly: 1) I was listening to what I heard being the First Amendment Foundation? on NPR releasing a poll noting that their very-unscientific poll found that half the population thinks the first amendment goes too far. And (their quote was 1 in 5, but I'm finding sources of 1 in 4) of the population don't even know what rights are guaranteed in the first amendment. 2) I have a paper due that will make or break my law school career. I hate being a forced sheep. baaaa.... >>>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin <deafbox@hotmail.com> writes: GLM> R> It's difficult to measure which is the greater liability in a GLM> R> potential mate, religiosity or alcoholism. GLM> G> Or politics. -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net

Fwd: Re[2]: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big And of course I forget the link that I did find. http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/news/8b4.asp Neither NPR nor the first amendment foundation seem to have the article I was looking for declaring the study. Even if its half true, its still frightening. It makes me want to pass out CATO bibles... -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net

Re: AA Meetings the Hottest Place to Meet Women With Big Bucks Gary Lawrence Murphy: >OK, but only if you also meant religious and alcoholic extremes ;) Since it was my quip, I'll point out that I used the term "alcoholism," implying addiction. I drink. I'm not an alcoholic. Most people who drink don't go to AA meetings. Most people who go to AA meetings do (try very hard) not to drink. As to religion, I think it is harmful and risky in almost any degree. Were I single, I might consider potential mates who partook of the less irrational or more light-hearted religions. A Unitarian or Buddhist might be an example of the first, a Wiccan of the second. But someone who is both irrational and serious about that irrationality strikes me as a bad choice of partner, moreso than someone who was addicted to some drug. Alcoholics and drug addicts at least have the sense to battle their problem, and to keep their children from suffering it. The religious revel in their irrationality, and want to raise their children in it. That's a difficult difference for two parents to reconcile. Fortunately, I am long and happily enamored of someone who has no religious tendencies. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

calling wayne baisley@#! You around? C -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: calling wayne baisley, the 12-Step Calvinist > help me out here. > You around? Barely, but don't call me Shirley. ;-) I'm sleeping with one eye open. I wouldn't have married me if I'd known how extremely shallow my politics are. "The ward lurks in Wisteria's maze." Cheers, Wayne

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty" I'm not a socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear examples? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rohit Khare" <khare@alumni.caltech.edu> To: <fork@spamassassin.taint.org> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:10 PM Subject: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g > > A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human > > race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. > > Absolutely correct. Perhaps the most fundamental thing to realize about > life on Earth today. > > The following is a fascinating document of official Government policy > that bears close reading. It is the aspirations of a wonderful nation in > an imperfect world. > > > The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, > > however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the > > future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an > > area where America must excel. > > I was recently at a lecture about the surprising success of Radio Sawa, > our new music-and-news channel for 15-30 year old Arabs. It's #1 in > practically every market it's entered, nearing 90% listenership in > Amman. And it's even beginning to be trusted for news, well past BBC and > taking share from every other government broadcaster. > > It is as hard to imagine America losing a war of ideas in the long-term > as it is to imagine America making any headway at all in the short term. > > Many of you may disagree, but I found the document below surprisingly > centrist. If you know the code, you can hear clearly partisan tones, re: > ICC, Taiwan Relations Act, etc. But, still, this is as much a Democratic > platform as not. Africa and AIDS take up more mindshare than I feared > they might. > > As you read, replace "United States" with "Roman Empire" and it may make > as much sense, in the long view of history. I don't know how proud to be > about that, but it is telling. Sometime I daydream that the President > might sit down with the nation with Perotista flip charts and explain to > our citizens the sheer vastness of our 700+ military installations > overseas and what they do for us. It would be a powerful education on > how engaged we are in the world around us. > > Heck, I'd love to see a real-time map of Federal expenditures around the > globe, a softly glowing necklace of embassies, carriers, arctic research > stations, hotels, golf courses, warehouses, libraries, clinics and all > the rest of the influence a trillion dollars here or there can buy. > > Of course, this still doesn't leave me any more comfortable with the > real news in this document: the Bush Doctrine for pre-emptive strikes. > I'd sooner repeal the Church amendments on covert action than permit > such a principle to be loosed upon the world. > > Rohit > > ----------------------------------------------------- > September 20, 2002 > > Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy > > Following is the full text of President Bush's new national security > strategy. The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the > United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of > the Administration's policy. > > INTRODUCTION > > THE great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and > totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of > freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, > democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only > nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and > guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the > potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People > everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; > worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own > property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom > are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of > protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of > freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. > > Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military > strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our > heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for > unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that > favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies > can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and > economic liberty. By making the world safer, we allow the people of the > world to make their own lives better. We will defend this just peace > against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace > by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the > peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent. > > Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental > commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed > dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great > industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of > individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less > than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to > penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies > against us. > > To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal -- > from better homeland defenses and law enforcement to intelligence and > cutting off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global > reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help > nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will > hold to account nations that are compromised by terror -- because the > allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and > countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop > new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every > turn. > > The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism > and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking > weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing > so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to > succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other > means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, > contain, and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous > technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America > will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We > cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must > be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence > and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who > saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have > entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. > > As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic > opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community > has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the > seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace > instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers > find ourselves on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist > violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common > interests to promote global security. We are also increasingly united by > common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching > for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese > leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of > national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political > freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage > the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, > because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and > international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great > powers -- even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, > trade, and cultural advancement. > > Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend > the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring > the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to > every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us > that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our > national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people > into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and > corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and > drug cartels within their borders. > > The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a > better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free > trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies > out of poverty -- so the United States will work with individual > nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to > build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. > The United States will deliver greater development assistance through > the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, > invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. We will also > continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of > AIDS and other infectious diseases. > > In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is > guided by the conviction that all nations have important > responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. > Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the > spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international > aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For > freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required. > > We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, > better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply > the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed > to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade > Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as > other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment > these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations > are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to > rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment. > > Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of > every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has > been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the > clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and > it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity > holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all > these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in > this great mission. > > I. Overview of America's International Strategy > > > "Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We > fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors > liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists > and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among > the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and > open societies on every continent." > > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength > and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of > liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with > unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great > strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that > favors freedom. > > For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great > struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and > equality. > > That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and > race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and > discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we > are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by > catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must > defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends. > > This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to > translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, > and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a > distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our > values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help > make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to > progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations > with other states, and respect for human dignity. > > And this path is not America's alone. It is open to all. > > To achieve these goals, the United States will: > > * champion aspirations for human dignity; > > * strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent > attacks against us and our friends; > > * work with others to defuse regional conflicts; > > * prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our > friends, with weapons of mass destruction; > > * ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and > free trade; > > * expand the circle of development by opening societies and building > the infrastructure of democracy; > > * develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of > global power; and > > * transform America's national security institutions to meet the > challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. > > > II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity > > > "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the > language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require > different methods, but not different moralities." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we > stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because > these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation > owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and > mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live > free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be > oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of > the secret police. > > America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human > dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; > free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; > religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property. > > These demands can be met in many ways. America's constitution has served > us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, > facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these > core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not > been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and > aspirations of their people. > > Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in > our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of > Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a > stronger, but is a freer and more just society. > > Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And > when openings arrive, we can encourage change -- as we did in central > and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000. When > we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in > the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin > America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can > evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all > cherish. > > Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, > the national security strategy of the United States must start from > these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty. > > Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international > cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation > of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international > bodies. > > We will: > > * speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of > human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to > advance freedom; > > * use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who > struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward > democracy are rewarded for the steps they take; > > * make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key > themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation > from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights > to move toward a better future; and > > * take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience > and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments. > > > We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist > it. > > III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent > Attacks Against Us and Our Friends > > > "Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have > the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already > clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been > waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is > peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on > the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of > our choosing." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral) > September 14, 2001 > > > > The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of > global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or > religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, > politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents. > > In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a > lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed > within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United > States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals > with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who > knowingly harbor or provide aid to them. > > The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in > our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly > elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come > through the persistent accumulation of successes -- some seen, some > unseen. > > Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, > and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to > achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition > forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not > only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of > trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South > America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia. > > Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist > organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, > control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will > have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate. > > We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a > coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional > campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure > the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial > tools necessary to finish the task. > > The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the > financing of terrorism. We will identify and block the sources of > funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who > support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial > system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, > and prevent the movement of terrorists' assets through alternative > financial networks. > > However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the > cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we > seek. > > We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by: > > * direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and > international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist > organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of > terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction > (WMD) or their precursors; > > * defending the United States, the American people, and our interests > at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it > reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to > enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate > to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by > acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing > harm against our people and our country; and > > * denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists > by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign > responsibilities. > > > We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international > terrorism. This includes: > > * using the full influence of the United States, and working closely > with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are > illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as > slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government > can condone or support and all must oppose; > > * supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim > world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote > terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation; > > * diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by > enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources > on areas most at risk; and > > * using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of > information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of > those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism. > > > While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense we are also > strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter > attack. > > This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization > since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council > and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland > Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental > reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland > encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public > and the private sector. > > This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, > emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with > terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened > to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and > mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop > terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic. > > While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism > in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. > Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations > and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where > governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we > will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and > our allies can provide. > > As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work > with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as > non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the > humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to > rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, > threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists > > In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are > ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom > and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this > conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, > productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in > ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. > > IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts > > > "We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. > The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements > look so small." > > > > > > President Bush > Berlin, Germany > May 23, 2002 > > > > Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional > disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In > an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our > alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create > horrifying affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states > falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to > alleviate suffering and restore stability. > > No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action -- > direct or indirect -- is warranted. We have finite political, economic, > and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States > will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind: > > * The United States should invest time and resources into building > international relationships and institutions that can help manage local > crises when they emerge. > > * The United States should be realistic about its ability to help > those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when > people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively. > > > Policies in several key regions offer some illustrations of how we will > apply these principles: > > The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of > human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state > of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance > to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace > for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed > to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in > peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a > government that serves their interests, and listens to their voices, and > counts their votes. The United States will continue to encourage all > parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and > comprehensive settlement to the conflict. > > The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank > stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic > development, increased humanitarian assistance and a program to > establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If > Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront > corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support > for the creation of a Palestinian state. > > Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. > Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. So the > United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete > steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. > As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw > fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent > with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement > activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, > freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians > to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial > role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and > Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them. > > In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India > and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This administration invested > time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and > Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a > constructive role when tensions in the region became acute. With > Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan's > choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more > open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India's potential to > become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century > and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our > involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in > bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan > that can help defuse military confrontation. > > Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and > respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting > the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to > employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its > neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by > Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference. > > In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with > countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, > Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic > hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, > opportunity, and hope. We will work with regional institutions, such as > the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States > (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of > the entire hemisphere. > > Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising > from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict > and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and > security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active > strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce > their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of > drugs, while -- as important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs > in our own country. > > In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist > groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking > activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are > working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat > illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective > sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic > security to the Colombian people. > > In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, > and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United > States -- preserving human dignity -- and our strategic priority -- > combating global terror. American interests and American principles, > therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an > African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. > Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa's > fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous > borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence > infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists. > > An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars > spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions > of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to > confronting these emerging transnational threats. > > Africa's great size and diversity requires a security strategy that > focuses bilateral engagement, and builds coalitions of the willing. This > administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the > region: > > * countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South > Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement > and require focused attention; > > * coordination with European allies and international institutions is > essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace > operations; and > > * Africa's capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations > must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational > threats on a sustained basis. > > > Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the > surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are > conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically > waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to > the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a > common responsibility for democratic political systems offers > opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent. > > V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends > with Weapons of Mass Destruction > > > "The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and > technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear > weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, > even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to > strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and > have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the > capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and > we will oppose them with all our power." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our > allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of > force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the > collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security > environment has undergone profound transformation. > > Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our > relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the > balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear > arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as > counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were > inconceivable. > > But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. > None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power > that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and > motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain > destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest > states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass > destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex > and dangerous. > > In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue > states that, while different in important ways, share a number of > attributes. These states: > > * brutalize their own people and squander their national resources > for the personal gain of the rulers; > > * display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, > and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; > > * are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with > other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively > to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; > > * sponsor terrorism around the globe; and > > * reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything > for which it stands. > > > At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's > designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against > Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear > weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become > the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested > increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. > Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as > well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has > become a looming threat to all nations. > > We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients > before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction > against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must > take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new > partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military > forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective > missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence > collection and analysis. > > Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes: > > * Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend > against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key > capabilities -- detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce > capabilities -- are integrated into our defense transformation and our > homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated > into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of > our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed > adversaries. > > * Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and > terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise > necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, > arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction > assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when > necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will > continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their > increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and > threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 > billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step > forward. > > * Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD > use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of > WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such > weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading > enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States > must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our > forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked. > > > It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of > this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the > United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have > in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy > of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be > caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. > We cannot let our enemies strike first. > > * In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we > faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an > effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of > retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states > more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and > the wealth of their nations. > > * In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered > weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who > used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons > of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and > military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also > allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our > allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior > of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means > of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. > > * Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a > terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the > targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death > and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between > states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to > action. > > > For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer > an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves > against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars > and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption > on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible > mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. > > We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and > objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not > seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would > fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use > of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed > and delivered covertly and without warning. > > The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian > population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law > of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, > mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and > these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired > and used weapons of mass destruction. > > The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions > to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the > threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling > the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if > uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To > forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United > States will, if necessary, act preemptively. > > The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging > threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. > Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek > the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot > remain idle while dangers gather. > > We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our > actions. To support preemptive options, we will: > > * build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide > timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge; > > * coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the > most dangerous threats; and > > * continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to > conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results. > > > The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat > to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our > actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. > > VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and > Free Trade. > > > "When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a > privileged few, no amount -- no amount -- of development aid is ever > enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in > better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade > revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively." > > > > > > President Bush > Monterrey, Mexico > March 22, 2002 > > > > A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing > prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth > supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher > incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs > economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it > reinforces the habits of liberty. > > We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's > shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic > policies and responding to their own economic challenge. We will use our > economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of > policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic > growth, including: > > * pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business > investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity; > > * tax policies -- particularly lower marginal tax rates -- that > improve incentives for work and investment; > > * rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are > confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic > endeavors; > > * strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most > efficient use; > > * sound fiscal policies to support business activity; > > * investments in health and education that improve the well-being and > skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and > > * free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the > diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and > opportunity. > > > The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not > command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the > best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further > strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for > all economies -- industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the > developing world. > > A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. > national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies > for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake > of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in > their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are > Japan's efforts to end deflation and address the problems of > non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system. We will continue to > use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners -- > including through the Group of Seven (G-7) -- to discuss policies they > are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher > global economic growth. > > Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic > growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand > the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging > markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise > living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a > world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that > allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in > their future. > > We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve > access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will > continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial > markets. We will work actively with other countries, the International > Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action > Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and > more effectively resolving them when they occur. > > The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from > occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing > so. We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy > conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on > achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, > exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy. > > The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it > became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others > value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something > that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the > freedom for a person -- or a nation -- to make a living. To promote free > trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy: > > * Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we > helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, > especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for > completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the > accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade > Organization. We will assist Russia's preparations to join the WTO. > > * Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies > in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of > the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United > States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, > targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and > government procurement. We will also offer more opportunity to the > poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences > allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free > trade. > > * Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the > free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration > will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and > Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of > developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. > Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will > be our principal focal points. > > * Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every > administration's trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with > Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished > majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing > Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for > developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will > work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade > agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade > Promotion Authority. > > * Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade > policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, > competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open > societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional > integration -- all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in > developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa > Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods > produced in the 35 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We will make more > use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue > to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer > countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, > the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public > health. We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are > flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical > medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and > malaria. > > * Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. > Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on > enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing > disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a > global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations > that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws > against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international > community must be able to address genuine concerns about government > subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which > undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred. > > * Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound > statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used > in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the > American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the > enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that > the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American > workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the > change and dynamism of open markets. > > * Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster > economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with > widening prosperity. We will incorporate labor and environmental > concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy "network" > between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the > International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade > talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade. > > * Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security > and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our > allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and > types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, > Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region. We will also continue to > work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient > technologies. > > > Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize > greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing > them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the > global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America's greenhouse > gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such > emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 > years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be > to: > > * remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for > international cooperation; > > * obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of > the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to > companies that can show real cuts; > > * develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission > reductions; > > * promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as > well as nuclear power -- which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, > while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks; > > * increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to > a total of $4.5 billion -- the largest sum being spent on climate change > by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year's > budget; and > > * assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas > emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and > resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and > better path. > > > VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building > the Infrastructure of Democracy > > > "In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to > rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we > must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (Inter-American > Development Bank) > March 14, 2002 > > > > A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human > race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including > all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development -- and > opportunity -- is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of > U.S. international policy. > > Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic > growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served > to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and > perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars > spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction > achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy. > > Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this > failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing > for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance -- and > the strategies to achieve those objectives -- must change. > > This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential > of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is > impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have > implemented real policy changes we will provide significant new levels > of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should > set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's > poorest economies within a decade. > > The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to > achieve this goal: > > * Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of > national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core > development assistance given by the United States. While continuing our > present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, > these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge > Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest > in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight > corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest > in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and > enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward > countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those > that have not to implement reforms. > > * Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development > banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a > comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other > multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of > the world's poor. We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. > contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. > contributions to the International Development Association (IDA) -- the > World Bank's fund for the poorest countries -- and the African > Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing > poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially > in the poorest countries. We will continue to press the multilateral > development banks to focus on activities that increase economic > productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, > and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant > must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in > developing countries. > > * Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development > assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world's > poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that > more children are getting a better education, more people have access to > health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a > better future for their families. We have a moral obligation to measure > the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering > results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own > development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral > development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for > achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA > replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation > system that measures recipient countries' progress. For the first time, > donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the > achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. > contribution is linked in this way. We will strive to make sure that the > World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this > progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything > that these institutions do. > > * Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in > the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants > is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, > particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with > ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA > agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the > poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, > sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress > by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development > banks. We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private > sector to match government efforts by using grants to support > development projects that show results. > > * Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are > the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, > most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and > foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows > as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national > security strategy. > > * Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor > countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics > like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be > threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the > developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest > governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective > local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new > global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan > and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for > treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than > twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the > global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more. > > * Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of > democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources > are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States > will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 > percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher > training in Africa. The United States can also bring information > technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been > devastated by AIDS. > > * Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, > including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields > in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. > Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits > to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still > suffer from hunger and malnutrition. > > > VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers > of Global Power > > > "We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th > century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead > of prepare for war." > > > > > > President Bush > West Point, New York > June 1, 2002 > > > > America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions -- as > broad as practicable -- of states able and willing to promote a balance > of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires > clear priorities, an appreciation of others' interests, and consistent > consultations among partners with a spirit of humility. > > There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can > accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies > and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the > strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the > North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its > inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European > security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world > trade. > > The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself > recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the > first time. NATO's core mission -- collective defense of the > transatlantic alliance of democracies -- remains, but NATO must develop > new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new > circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, > highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to > respond to a threat against any member of the alliance. > > The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, > creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to > mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must: > > * expand NATO's membership to those democratic nations willing and > able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests; > > * ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate > combat contributions to make in coalition warfare; > > * develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become > effective multinational fighting forces; > > * take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of > scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that > they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities; > > * streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to > meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of > training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; > and > > * maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as > we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces. > > > If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a > partnership as central to the security and interests of its member > states as was the case during the Cold War. We will sustain a common > perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to > take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the > same time, we welcome our European allies' efforts to forge a greater > foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to > close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO. We > cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of > transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come. > > The attacks of September 11 energized America's Asian alliances. > Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an > attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the > dispatch of some of the world's finest combat forces for Operation > Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented > levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist > attack. We have deepened cooperation on counter-terrorism with our > alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received > invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand. > > The war against terrorism has proven that America's alliances in Asia > not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and > ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and > friendships, we will: > > > * look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and > global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our > close defense and diplomatic cooperation; > > * work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while > preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of > the region over the longer-term; > > * build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we > continue working together to resolve regional and global problems -- as > we have so many times from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Tora Bora; > > * maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our > allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic > environment; and > > * build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with > institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation > forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage > change in this dynamic region. > > > We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power > competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of > internal transition -- most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all > three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly > global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape. > > With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based > on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and > Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on > Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a > critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, > long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United > States. Russia's top leaders have a realistic assessment of their > country's current weakness and the policies -- internal and external -- > needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that > Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that > Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. > > United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to > refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and > challenges. We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the > global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia's entry into the > World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to > promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. We have > created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security > cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves. We will > continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the > former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable > neighborhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration > into the Euro-Atlantic community. > > At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still > divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to > build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our > motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our > relations. Russia's uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market > democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons > of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia's very > weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those > opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years -- or even > decades. > > The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral > relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests > require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest > democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative > government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We > have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through > the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest > in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia. > > Differences remain, including over the development of India's nuclear > and missile programs, and the pace of India's economic reforms. But > while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about > India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with > which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership > with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic > future. > > The United States relationship with China is an important part of our > strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific > region. We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous > China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. > Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst > features of the Communist legacy, China's leaders have not yet made the > next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. > In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its > neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated > path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national > greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is > the only source of that greatness. > > The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing > China. We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including > the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean > peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan > and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counter-terrorism and > similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, > such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the > welfare of our citizens. > > Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become > more open with information, promote the development of civil society, > and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to > political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting > village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national > one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly > accountable to its citizen's needs and aspirations, however, much work > remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, > assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential. > > Our important trade relationship will benefit from China's entry into > the World Trade Organization, which will create more export > opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, > and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over > $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and > the WTO's requirements for transparency and accountability will advance > openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic > protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other > areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the > self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human > rights is another. We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation > commitments. We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but > not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree. > > The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for > relations between the United States and other main centers of global > power, and opened vast, new opportunities. With our long-standing allies > in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we > must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships > become routine and unproductive. > > Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge. We > can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober > analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices > that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open > the path of progress. > > IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the > Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century > > > "Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch > its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, > and enterprise of our people." > > > > > > President Bush > Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress) > September 20, 2001 > > > > The major institutions of American national security were designed in a > different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be > transformed. > > It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. > We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's > highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, > our military must: > > * assure our allies and friends; > > * dissuade future military competition; > > * deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and > > * decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails. > > > The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their > forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most > strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must > confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to > deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on > how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might > occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational > challenges. > > The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound > symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our > willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, > the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of > power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the > many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases > and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as > well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment > of U.S. forces. > > Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major > planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate > across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch > of the armed forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by > developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision > strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. > This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the > ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure > U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. > infrastructure and assets in outer space. > > Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new > approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. > intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and > technology. We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is > run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. > Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight > the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a > wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of > coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends. > > We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from > experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must > and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -- > whether a state or non-state actor -- to impose its will on the United > States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces > sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces > will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a > military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the > United States. > > Intelligence -- and how we use it -- is our first line of defense > against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed > around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, > fixed object -- the Soviet bloc -- the intelligence community is coping > with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of > targets. > > We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to > keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be > appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems > and coordinated with our allies and friends. We need to protect the > capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the > knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek > the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and > to maximize injury. > > We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide > integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since > the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted > inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of > information between intelligence and law enforcement. > > Initiatives in this area will include: > > * strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence > to lead the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence > capabilities; > > * establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides > seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing > the nation and our allies; > > * continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to > sustain our intelligence advantage; > > * investing in future capabilities while working to protect them > through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence > capabilities; and > > * collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the > government with all-source analysis. > > > As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend > America's interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other > nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding > sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State > Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with > other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must > be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations > and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in > international politics must also extend their reach to understand > complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public > health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy. > > Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil > wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief > requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build > police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial > government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international > cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American > readiness to play our part. > > Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out > to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to > public information efforts that can help people around the world learn > about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of > civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, > a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas > and this is an area where America must excel. > > We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet > our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired > by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the > International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend > to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with > other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and > cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral > agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will > implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose > provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. > personnel and officials. > > We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the > right level and allocation of government spending on national security. > The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this > war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for > the American people. > > Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is > diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America's borders have > a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, > and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish -- > our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life -- are > vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we > bring to justice those responsible for the September eleventh attacks. > As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that > until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This > is a new condition of life. We will adjust to it and thrive -- in spite > of it. > > In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and > interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act > apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require. When we > disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for > our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives. We will not allow > such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with > our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values. > > Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the > skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of > our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, > entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that > energy. That is where our national security begins. >

Senate Committee Passes Nanotech Bill Weird... I never thought the govmint would get into funding this. You know 'weapons of mass destruction'. etc. etc. == http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/10849_1467121 September 20, 2002 Senate Committee Passes Nanotech Bill By Roy Mark The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously passed on Thursday legislation to promote nanotechnology research and development. Introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act would create the National Nanotechnology Research Program. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.). The proposed program would be a coordinated interagency effort that would support long-term nanoscale research and development and promote effective education and training for the next generation of nanotechnology researchers and professionals. "The unanimous support of the Senate Commerce Committee is a very big step forward for this very small technology," Lieberman, who vowed to pushed to full Senate passage before the end of the year, said. "Nowhere in the world are the wheels of innovation spinning more rapidly than in the realm of nanotechnology. The U.S. certainly possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing this technology. Our legislation will provide the nation with a long-term focus and sustained commitment, and facilitate new collaborations between government, academia, and industry that will ensure our place at the head of the next wave of innovation." The bill would place coordination and management of the nanotechnology program under the National Science and Technology Council. It would also create a Presidential National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel and National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which would provide administrative and technical support for the Advisory Panel and the Council. "My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology," Wyden said in introducing the bill. "At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across a half-dozen federal agencies. I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe federal support is essential to achieving that goal. To study the potential long-term effects of nanotechnology, a new Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Legal and Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology would also be established. According to Lieberman, the bill closely tracks the recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC), which completed a thorough review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in June. Those recommendations included establishing an independent advisory panel; emphasizing long-term goals; striking a balance between long-term and short-term research; supporting the development of research facilities, equipment and instrumentation; creating special funding to support research that falls in the breach between agency missions and programs; promoting interdisciplinary research and research groups; facilitating technology transition and outreach to industry; conducting studies on the societal implications of nanotechnology, including those related to ethical, educational, legal and workforce issues; and the development of metrics for measuring progress toward program goals.

Sun Nabs Storage Startup - buys Pirus Networks Related to the MS acquisition of XDegrees? == http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/1466271 Sun Nabs Storage Startup By Clint Boulton Amid the flurry of news at its own SunNetwork 2002 conference in San Francisco, Sun Microsystems Thursday said it has agreed to purchase data storage concern Pirus Networks for an undisclosed amount of stock. The Palo Alto, Calif. networking firm bought the Acton, Mass.-based startup with a keen eye for the startup's switching (define) devices and virtualization technology. Used as part of a storage area network (define), virtualization is the pooling of storage from many network storage devices into what appears to the operating system to be a single storage device that is managed from a central console. Though major vendors make similar technology, Pirus competes with the likes of Rhapsody Networks and Confluence Networks. Sun plucked Pirus after scouting some 65 companies. Mark Lovington, vice president of marketing for Pirus, told internetnews.com that Pirus and Sun have been in discussion for a while about a possible acquisition. Pirus, he said, succeeded in a goal it shares with a lot of storage startups -- to be acquired by one of the major systems vendors, such as Sun IBM, HP, Hitachi. "This is a huge opportunity for Pirus in a storage market dominated by 6,7 or 8 system-level players," Lovington said. "Sun sees this acquisition as a critical element to their N1 initiative. The synergies were quite obvious." N1 is Sun's hopeful tour de force in distributed computing (define) architecture, which involves multiple, remote computers that each have a role in a computation problem or information processing. N1 is being styled as the answer for companies looking to manage groups of computers and networks as a single system -- at a lower cost and with greater flexibility. While lagging behind other, more entrenched players, Sun is gaining ground in the storage market with its Sun StorEdge Complete Storage Solutions, according to a new report by IDC. John McArthur, group vice president of IDC's Storage program, said Sun Microsystems and IBM posted the largest increases in total storage revenue over Q1 2002, with 32% and 11% gains, respectively. As of Q2, Sun held a 9 percent market share, with revenues of $411 million. Sun's acquisition of Pirus is expected to close in the second quarter of Sun's 2003 fiscal year, which ends December 29, 2002.

SunMSapple meta4 of the day Im feeling a bit farklempt having spent the night at Todais with the family so talk amongst yourself..here Ill give you a topic The current state of IT can be thought of in terms of the Cold war with the US and the UUSR being MS and Sun/IBM/OSS (does it matter which side is which?), Apple as Cuba and the US legal system as the UN. Discuss.

AmeriCorpsVISTA The pay's not good (9,300 a year), but there is insurance, a 4,700 (I think) off a student loan, or for future education, and non-compete status for any govt. job after a year's service. I moved to New Orleans yesterday, and I should be flying to DC in about a month to start the AmeriCorps training. I'll be setting up a community technology center which will be used to teach computer literacy skills to low income folks (just, like, learning MS shit (yeah yeah, wtf am i doing? I know.)) so that they can possibly find better jobs. I'm sure I'll be doing all sorts of other things too, like helping folks with their taxes, writing grants, etc. The website is www.americorps.org. There are -all- sorts of jobs all over the country, so if someone out there can survive on the small salary, it's something s/he might want to take a look at. Since Xi is in college and getting grants + scholarship + child support from dad, my load has gone down terrifically. The IRS is after me for money I didn't make on the stock market, so it's a way to at least get into a situation where they will have to understand that yes, they will have to wait. But bottom line benefit and motivation is the feelgood that ya get when you do this type of job. I'm up for some of that. Cindy -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g At 9:34 PM -0700 on 9/20/02, Mr. FoRK wrote: > "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole > societies out of poverty" > I'm not a socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear > examples? You're probably living in one, or you wouldn't be able to post here. ;-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way ---C Dickens G'Quon Wrote "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way." The war we fight is not against powers and principalities - it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future, or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain. --JWS

Oh my... Hello fork, So they have Aaron Schwartz on NPR's Weekend Edition talking about Warchalking. I'll agree, its funny, his voice is squeaky and I'm jealous that he got on radio and I didn't... But really, WTF is the big deal about warchalking? I have yet to see any of it, anywhere. LInk will probably pop up on www.npr.org later today. -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net

Re[2]: Oh my... Hello Chris, Oh I don't know, Time-lag synchrocity? Or mutual shared experience over time? :) Its like 930 am..I can't function yet. Lord knows its 630 where you are. I say this should be a FoRK Posit. CO> Scary. I was just listening to the radio (stream, from KUOW), and heard CO> the story just moments ago. CO> We're on opposite sides of the continent, yet we appear to have just had a CO> shared experience. There should be a name for that... CO> Cheers - CO> /cco CO> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 bitbitch@magnesium.net wrote: >> >> So they have Aaron Schwartz on NPR's Weekend Edition talking >> about Warchalking. I'll agree, its funny, his voice is squeaky and >> I'm jealous that he got on radio and I didn't... -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g >>>>> "f" == fork list <Mr.> writes: f> "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift f> whole societies out of poverty" I'm not a f> socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear f> examples? China? Ooops, no wait, scratch that. There is one counter example that I can think of, but it may not be precisely "free trade/markets" -- when Ben Franklin first visited England he was asked why the colonies were so prosperous. Ben explained that they used "Colonial Script", a kind of barter-dollar, and increasing the supply of script ensured complete employment. The British bankers were furious and immediately lobbied parliament to clamp down on the practice. Within a few years, the colonies were rife with unemployment and poverty just like the rest of the Empire. According to questionable literature handed out by a fringe political party here in Canada, the Founding Fathers had no real complaint about tea taxes, it was the banning of colonial script they were protesting. If this is true, then it comes right back to the forces that killed Ned Ludd's followers as to why popular opinion believes they were protesting a tea tax. The same pamphlet claimed that Canada was also a prosperous nation until, by an act of parliament in the late-50's or early 60's, the right to print money was removed from the juristiction of parliament and handed over to the Bank of Canada. I've wondered about all this. Certainly the timeline of the collapse of the Canadian economy fits the profile, but there are oodles of other causes (for example, spending money like we had 300M people when we only had 20M) Anyone have any further information on this? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g >>>>> "R" == R A Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> writes: R> At 9:34 PM -0700 on 9/20/02, Mr. FoRK wrote: >> "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift >> whole societies out of poverty" I'm not a >> socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear >> examples? R> You're probably living in one, or you wouldn't be able to post R> here. Cool --- I wasn't aware that the US had lifted it's population out of poverty! When did this happen? I wonder where the media gets the idea that the wealth gap is widening and deepening... -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:32 AM -0400 on 9/21/02, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > Cool --- I wasn't aware that the US had lifted it's population out > of poverty! When did this happen? I wonder where the media gets the > idea that the wealth gap is widening and deepening... All the world loves a smartass... :-). Seriously. Look at he life expectancy and human carrying capacity of this continent before the Europeans got here. Look at it now. Even for descendants of the original inhabitants. Even for the descendents of slaves, who were brought here by force. More stuff, cheaper. That's progress. Poverty, of course, is not relative. It's absolute. Disparity in wealth has nothing to do with it. It's like saying that groups have rights, when, in truth, only individuals do. Like group rights, "disparity" in wealth is statistical sophistry. Besides, even if you can't help the distribution, industrial wealth is almost always transitory, and so is relative poverty, even when there are no confiscatory death-taxes. The 20th anniversary Forbes 400 just came out, and only a few tens of people are still there since 1982, a time which had significantly higher marginal taxes on wealth, income, and inheritance than we do now. More to the point, they're nowhere near the top. I'll take those odds. It is only when neofeudalism reasserts itself, in the form of government regulation, confiscatory taxes, legislated monopoly, corporate welfare, "non-profit" neoaristocratic tax dodges, and legalized labor extortion that we get slowdowns in progress, like what happened in Fabian-era Britain, or 1970's USA. In fact, it is in countries where wealth is the most "unfairly" distributed, that you get the most improvement in the general -- economic -- welfare. More stuff cheaper, fewer people dying, more people living longer. I'll take those odds as well. People take greater risks when the returns are higher, improving the lot of us all as a result. Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.5 iQA/AwUBPYy3ysPxH8jf3ohaEQLqNQCg14YvF8NVYwKiRrghHdisBoNCOn8AoPcR QUzorXeaLe5h3T1syKl7DFNT =9kff -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hall" <johnhall@evergo.net> > Take a list of the richest countries. > > Take a list of the countries that have the counties where markets are > the most free. > > They are, essentially, the same list. Umm... how many of these countries were in poverty & lifted themselves up after switching?

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> > > > > "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole > > societies out of poverty" > > I'm not a socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear > > examples? > > You're probably living in one, or you wouldn't be able to post here. > When was the whole US society in poverty & was that before free trade & free markets? I'm looking for transitions due to free xyz.

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> > > Seriously. Look at he life expectancy and human carrying capacity of > this continent before the Europeans got here. Look at it now. Even > for descendants of the original inhabitants. Even for the descendents > of slaves, who were brought here by force. I wouldn't say that the societies of humans here before European occupancy was 'lifted' by free xyz. Perhaps 'replaced' or 'sunk' or some other description, but not 'lifted'. Also, the lifestyle of the remnants of those societies is on average only marginally above poverty even today.

Re: Oh my... I went out and drew some chalk circles on my sidewalk just so I wouldn't miss out on the experience. I've collected half a dozen passwords & access to email accounts so far. Greg bitbitch@magnesium.net wrote: > Hello fork, > > So they have Aaron Schwartz on NPR's Weekend Edition talking > about Warchalking. I'll agree, its funny, his voice is squeaky and > I'm jealous that he got on radio and I didn't... > > But really, WTF is the big deal about warchalking? I have yet to > see any of it, anywhere. > > LInk will probably pop up on www.npr.org later today. > > > -- Gregory Alan Bolcer, CTO | work: +1.949.833.2800 gbolcer at endeavors.com | http://endeavors.com Endeavors Technology, Inc.| cell: +1.714.928.5476

RE: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g > As I've said before, American > Indian Reservations are quite > possibly the only place on the > planet where you can find trailer > park shantytowns where every > household is bringing in a > six-figure income. I wish I > could be exploited like that. Like what, like the rare exception case you've raised or like the "on average" case mentioned in the post you were replying to? Max

Re: Oh my... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Alan Bolcer" <gbolcer@endeavors.com> > I went out and drew some chalk circles on my > sidewalk just so I wouldn't miss out on the experience. > I've collected half a dozen passwords & > access to email accounts so far. > > Greg hahaha! <joke>It takes a thief to catch a thief?</joke>

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Rogers" <jamesr@best.com> > As I've said before, American > Indian Reservations are quite possibly the only place on the planet where > you can find trailer park shantytowns where every household is bringing in a > six-figure income. I wish I could be exploited like that. Got bits? (and I bet you probably /are/ being exploited, but you just don't know by whom...)

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Rogers" <jamesr@best.com> > As I've said before, American > Indian Reservations are quite possibly the only place on the planet where > you can find trailer park shantytowns where every household is bringing in a > six-figure income. I wish I could be exploited like that. If you can't trust the guvmint census, who can you trust? === http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01fff15.html Income and Poverty $31,799 Median household income for American Indians and Alaska Natives, based on a 1998-2000 average. This is higher than for African Americans ($28,679), not statistically different from Hispanics ($31,703) and lower than for non-Hispanic Whites ($45,514), and Asians and Pacific Islanders ($52,553). <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-158.html> 25.9% The poverty rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives, based on a 1998-2000 average. This rate was not statistically different from the rates for African Americans and Hispanics, but was higher than those for non-Hispanic Whites, and Asians and Pacific Islanders. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-158.html> 701,000 Number of American Indians and Alaska Natives below the poverty line, based on a 1998-2000 average. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-158.html> ===

E-Textiles Come into Style Cool - I wonder what you'd look like standing in front of a bunch of corporate executives... == http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_hellweg080102.asp That's why, for example, Orth is trying to catch the interest of the military with fabrics that change color when conductive fibers stitched into the cloth heat and cool the material's thermochromatic inks. "The army wants fully addressable, interactive camouflage," she says, "so that when you're standing in front of bricks, your clothing looks like bricks. When you're in grass, you look like grass. Accomplishing that would be like a space program for e-textiles."

flavor cystals Can anyone stop talking politics long enough to let me know that, yes, indeed, they do remember the Suburban Lawns? Better yet, tell me where I should be listening for new music now that P2P is dead and I still can't pick up KFJC very well. - Joe -- Give me time I will be clear; given time you'll understand. What possesses me to right what you have suffered. I'm in this mood because of scorn; I'm in a mood for total war. To the darkened skies once more and ever onward.

Re: sed /s/United States/Roman Empire/g Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: >>>>>>"R" == R A Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > R> At 9:34 PM -0700 on 9/20/02, Mr. FoRK wrote: > >> "Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift > >> whole societies out of poverty" I'm not a > >> socio-political/history buff - does anybody have some clear > >> examples? > > R> You're probably living in one, or you wouldn't be able to post > R> here. > >Cool --- I wasn't aware that the US had lifted it's population out of >poverty! When did this happen? I wonder where the media gets the >idea that the wealth gap is widening and deepening... > > > > I wasn't aware that there was anyone who could use the words "free trade" about the United States and keep a straight face. Owen

[vox] Anarchist 'Scavenger Hunt' Raises D.C. Police Ire (fwd) Anarchist 'Scavenger Hunt' Raises D.C. Police Ire Sat Sep 21, 3:37 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An online "anarchist scavenger hunt" proposed for next week's annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund ( news - web sites) and World Bank ( news - web sites) here has raised the ire of police, who fear demonstrators could damage property and wreak havoc. Break a McDonald's window, get 300 points. Puncture a Washington D.C. police car tire to win 75 points. Score 400 points for a pie in the face of a corporate executive or World Bank delegate. D.C. Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer told a congressional hearing on Friday that law authorities were in talks to decide whether planned protests were, "so deleterious to security efforts that we ought to take proactive action." Several thousand people are expected to demonstrate outside the IMF and World Bank headquarters next weekend. The Anti-Capitalist Convergence, a D.C.-based anarchist group, is also planning a day-long traffic blockade, banner-drops and protests against major corporations in the downtown core. Chuck, the 37 year-old webmaster of the anarchist site www.infoshop.org who declined to give his last name, told Reuters his scavenger hunt was meant as a joke. "People were asking for things to do when they come to D.C. We made the list to get people thinking, so they don't do the boring, standard stuff," he said. "I doubt people will actually keep track of what they do for points."

[vox] Founding Fathers on Religion Some interesting quotes... http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short Jefferson again: "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Re: Oh my... LOL you rool (: On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote: > I went out and drew some chalk circles on my > sidewalk just so I wouldn't miss out on the experience. > I've collected half a dozen passwords & > access to email accounts so far. > > Greg > > bitbitch@magnesium.net wrote: > > Hello fork, > > > > So they have Aaron Schwartz on NPR's Weekend Edition talking > > about Warchalking. I'll agree, its funny, his voice is squeaky and > > I'm jealous that he got on radio and I didn't... > > > > But really, WTF is the big deal about warchalking? I have yet to > > see any of it, anywhere. > > > > LInk will probably pop up on www.npr.org later today. > > > > > > > > > -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn

Re: flavor cystals >>>>> "J" == Joseph S Barrera, <Joseph> writes: J> Better yet, tell me where I should be listening for new music J> now that P2P is dead and I still can't pick up KFJC very well. How about your local pub? (sorry couldn't resist) I still use Live365; slowly the disconnected stations are returning, since the fee to stay on the air can be as low as $6/month, and if your fave broadcaster won't pay, you're given the option to pay for them. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy - garym@teledyn.com - TeleDynamics Communications - blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)